You’ve got that backward, we kicked the mugger (Saddam) in the head and smashed his nuts. His army is gone. If the forces of freedom and light can’t succeed on their own after being handed that victory, they’re acting contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, and our propping them up for a year or two, or a decade, won’t help them. It won’t help us either.
Obviously I disagree. I’m no Saddam fan here, but he WAS a stabilizing influence and he DID have a military able to at least keep public order. We destroyed the military and toppled Saddam throwing the nation into complete chaos. I actually DO think the ‘forces of freedom and light’ exist in Iraq…just that, like most such forces, they are at odds with similar forces on the other side of the isle. Reguardless, its a bit difficult to bring about a completely new government, and a coalition government made up various hostile factions with a currently reconstituting military and a shaky political base in the midst of an insurgency that is at least in part, if not majority, spawned by non-Iraqi’s coming in with the purpose of disrupting the democratic process (because they have a different agenda) as well as bagging their limit of American’s. In fact, seems to me your own cite of the escallation of Iraqi civilian/police/military bears this out somewhat…after all, why ARE these guys now focusing so much on the population at large? I expect that to only get worse if the US leaves…after all, if they are going after the Iraqi’s NOW (instead of those hated American’s) what makes you think that situation will get better if we leave?
Thats quite true and it certainly could fall out that way. I think Yugoslavia is a poor example as the various factions there were much more hostile to each other historically than the Sunni/Shi’ite/Kurds were IIRC. But it could certainly be that there is no reconsiliation between the various Iraqi groups and civil war and bloodshed is the only option. I just don’t think we have yet allowed the Iraqi’s their chance to avoid that. After their constitution is ratified, after their military is reformed and retrained, after their new government is voted on by the IRaqi people and installed…THEN if things are still dragging and nothing is better, then we should start thinking about leaving them to the killing.
Myself, I’d prefer that we did your announcement that we are leaving in 6 months time after their constitution is ratified and the Iraqi’s vote in their new government. I think that would be a better time to do it. We would then have given them a very reasonable shot at making this all work.
Yes, I see this now…I wish I had seen it like this before. Ah, hindsight.
-XT
That won’t mean much until we actually go about tearing down the “enduring bases” (and the supporting infrastructure) we’ve built already.
[QUOTE=Squink It is NOT too much to ask for some discussion from the administration that doesn’t involve beacons of freedom or shining cities on hills.[/QUOTE]
My favorite horseshit saying by GWB is “freedom is on the march”.
Well I don’t agree with your assessment of the situation Xtisme… you’ve been talking about the insurgency losing pace for sometime now… and its picking up more than losing pace. Still what is a few more hundred dead ? Sadly I think American and Bush’s Pride are the current reasons for staying more than any belief in a reformed Iraq.
Like an american politician said more or less: “If this is winning… I don’t dare imagine what losing would be”.
I think Yugoslavia is a close comparison... certainly once the strong man fell the squabbling began. Its taken a decade of peackeeping in order to change things there.I have opposed this [many expletives deleted] war from the first saber-rattling, and have rarely taken less satisfaction in being proved right. Therefore, I agree that, to an enormous degree, we must fix what we have broken. But I deserve to know how much fixin’ we’re gonna do before we get down to it.
The problem is, I do not believe that this “war” is ever supposed to be won.
Well, that’s just the problem. In terms of how much more this is going to cost us in terms of time, money, trouble and blood before the situation can reasonably be considered “fixed,” you don’t know, I don’t know, and I doubt anyone in the Administration, the CIA, the State Department or the Defense Department has anything near to an educated guess.
It’s quite true, actually. It just isn’t always marching forward.
What evidence do you have showing that the insurgency is picking up? Everything I’ve read lately seems to indicate that its pretty much stabilized, neither growing nor shrinking.
Ok, so you want us to go and you don’t buy my prediction that doing so will cause a civil war. What do YOU think will happen then RM? Whats your own prediction if the US pulls out?
Oh, I for one can imagine what losing will be like. I might be completely wrong, but I can certainly imagine what it will be like as Iraq and possibly the entire region tears itself apart in a bloody civil war. They don’t do things by half measures there…just check out the Iran/Iraq war sometime. And it won’t be over quickly like in Vietnam…there is not group with overwhelming force in this picture. And we are talking about folks who feel that suicide bombing of civilians as well as police is a valid military tactic.
Now, imagine 3 such major factions in Iraq (and gods know how many smaller sub-groups aligned with one of the 3 or each other, or on their own) all fighting either for complete independence (like the Kurds) or fighting to control the nation and put down the other faction (Shi’ite/Sunni). Each of these factions has militia units, they have access to weapons and ammo (thanks to Saddam and the myriad caches scattered around the country), they have access to fanatics and insurgent type folks willing to do whatever it takes for the cause.
Now, consider Turkey’s reaction to the Kurds fighting for independence. Consider Iran’s reaction to any Shi’ite massacres, or to Shi’ite victories…and SA’s reaction to any Sunni. And consider nations like Syria who might simply want to take a bite out of Iraq when no one is really looking.
Sounds pretty bad to me. But you know, you can tell me what YOU think will happen if the US just pulls out before a constitution is ratified, before the IRaqi military is reconstituted, before the Iraqi people get a chance to vote on whatever new government is emerging.
-XT
Geez, XT, you don’t sound very optimistic! Notwithstanding, I think you’re right.
The trouble is that the things you’ve identified are essentially political problems. And what we have in Iraq is not so much a political effort as it is a military effort. Armies aren’t designed to solve political problems. Even if they get the upper hand militarily, not a single one of those political problems goes away.
We will never cut and run from Iraq! We will declare glorious victory and withdraw our troops from the battlefield, our mission completed!
(Now, some rabble-rousers may not see the victory as clearly as the rest of us …)
I’m not too optimistic either way to be honest. Its a fucked up situation no matter which way you turn. I merely see a higher body count one way than the other…but the body count is fairly sickening no matter what.
I agree completely and have tried to say this several times without success I guess. I don’t think there IS a military solution for Iraq. Only a political solution will solve this mess…and the only political solution HAS to come from the Iraqi’s themselves. Or it won’t come at all and the US would be best advised to tuck tail and run for home because its going to be ugly.
-XT
All of these are very enlightening points, and should have been very carefully considered before we ever stepped in the steaming pile of shit to begin with.
I recall before this started that I asked the question “So, we know we’re going to win the military battle…what then?” To which december , a long-long defender of truth, justice, and the Amurkin way, replied “No one knows.”
Makes perfect strategic sense to me.
Not sure where you get your news, but as I pointed out in the last thread we were discussing this issue, there is a definite disconnect between your optimistic beliefs and what is actually happening on the ground.
“Stabilized”? In Rumsfeldian-speak, maybe, in reality, nothing could be further from the truth:
Iraqi Rebels Refine Bomb Skills, Pushing Toll of G.I.'s Higher
To boil down:
There is no option without the potential for dreadful consequence. None. We run for the hills, we save some of our own, and risk disaster. True.
But there is good reason to believe that our presence may be fostering the very disaster we are intent on avoiding. We cannot know, every decision is risky.
But: if we don’t know, how can we justify sacrificing our best and brightest in a cause we have good reason to believe is futile?
Again, with grave reluctance: enough. Out now!
Oh, it’s worse than that:
So not only is the situation not getting better for us (despite insistence by Dick Cheney et al otherwise), but the insurgents that are there are going to be giving the rest of the planet even more trouble down the road.
If they are not growing, they sure as hell are getting more efficient. In April, they killed more American troops than they did in March; in May they killed more than in April; and they are on track to kill more in June than they did in May. If that is stabilized, they don’t need growth.
I’d be more tempted to put the higher body count with the same scenario as you, if our leaders were not so obviously spinning to beat the band.
Abizaid, our modern day Westmoreland, tried to paint a picture of possible victory today, not a pretty picture:
He immediately got caught up in how that related to Cheney’s “last throes” remark. Cheney had to give an interview with Wolf Blitzer to clarify:
Unfortunately, the VP didn’t tell us what we should belive that last means.
When I read junk like this, and also read stories where Iraqi bombing victims, or Iraqis without water, sewage or power, blame their troubles on the occupiers and the elected government, I don’t conclude that we’re on any sort of path to victory.
An idea crosses my mind, like a lonely albatross crosses an ocean…
About those “enduring bases” being built, and what that implies. They may not, in fact, be being built in service of an occupying army. I think there’s another interpretation. Yes, the Bushiviks expected to occupy those bases, but they expected to be invited to occupy those bases by a blubberingly grateful Iraqi government, back in the days when they expected to be greeted with boquets flung at their feet.
The thing about plans is, they take on a life of thier own. The plans were complete, the money (oh! the money! the great, gushing fountains of Benjamins!) at hand, so the projects went right ahead. Those “enduring bases” are not going forward because they represent some aspect of a plausible plan but because no one is going to say “well, maybe not…”
But there is no chance, none whatsoever, that the Bushiviks will accede to a withdrawal plan. They only win if the nearly impossible happens: by some miracle a peaceful, federal Iraq emerges from the madness. Anything less than that is “cut and run”, and that is political disaster. On our side of the spectrum, we certainly aren’t going to say “Well, that’s that, all over, never mind.” On the other side, the hawks will scream bloody murder at any result short of complete and total victory. “Peace with honor”, as it were.
So no matter what happens, no matter how awful it gets, the Bushiviks will be telling us “just a little longer, really, they’re almost whupped, two three years…five years tops. OK, maybe ten.” Even if the Dems force a timetable on them, they only need to declare some “emergency” to toss it out the window.
So it looks like years. And years.
This is what I meant when I said I don’t believe this war was ever meant to be won. It is meant to be fought. Endlessly. As a means of keeping control and power.
Even if the Dems can get elected, there is almost no chance that they can sort the situation out in less than 4 years, which lets the Pubes say “see? they fucked it up worse than we did; elect us back!”
And I have no faith in the critical thinking skills of the vast majority of Americans, so I’m reasonably certain that the Dems would lose, and we would have another 4-8 years (minimum) of Republican leadershit.
<sigh> ugh.