What is your plan for Iraq?

Great Debates
1

In reference to this thread, what is your plan for Iraq? Specifically, what goals and metrics would you propose to measure our progress? I found Banquet Bear’s analysis of the metrics in the administration’s fluff piece compelling. Being able to define concrete, objective goals and a proposed timetable to meet those objectives seems to be beyond the capabilities of the White House, though fortunately, that does not seem to be the case with the Department of Defense and the Department of State.

Cite:

Cite: Warning PDF.

The above, rebuilding the Iraqi Armed Forces and the electrical grid, are two goals that I feel should be accomplished before we can leave Iraq. We broke it, we’re obligated to fix it. Though that may be up for debate also.

AP
Oh, and hello to everyone at the SDMB!!!

2

In broad strategic terms, the plan is simple enough. Train Iraqi forces. Put them into the fight alongside U.S. troops. As they get better and gain more capability, scale back the role of the U.S. soldiers. When they are capable of operating on their own, the U.S. soldiers move out and into other areas. If the Iraqis prove incapable of operating on their own, help them some more. Repeat as necessary.

As Iraqi soldiers take up more of the fight, the U.S. soldiers can be withdrawn. Also, since it’s important for the Iraqis to see that it’s their own people fighting to defend them, reduce the visible ‘footprint’ of the Americans by withdrawing them from the cities into bases elsewhere. For instance, I think it might be a good idea to close down the ‘green zone’ and move U.S. operations out to the Baghdad airport.

One day the Iraqis will be completely capable of defending their own country from within, and defending their borders from neighboring states. In fact, eventually I expect Iraq to have perhaps the best and most professional army in the Arab world. But these things take time. Years, no doubt. But long before then , the Iraqi army should be able to take over on a unit-by-unit basis, allowing the U.S. to reduce its footprint to maybe 50,000 soldiers - a number that might be maintained indefinitely. That’s on par with the number of soldiers the U.S permanently based in Germany, Okinawa, and South Korea after those conflicts ended.

This assumes that the Iraqis will want the U.S. to stay in any shape or form. I believe they will for at least several years, but once the Iraqi army is fully autonomous and competant, they may not. And that’s fine.

This has been the plan all along, for at least two years now. The problem has been in the execution. The administration made numerous mistakes - some visible only in hindsight, but many that were obvious at the time. For example, disbanding the Iraqi army after the war. Not fighting the insurgency with a ‘clear and hold’ strategy, but instead fighting in an area until the insurgents were gone, then withdrawing and allowing them to come back in again. Leaving the border open with Syria was another.

These mistakes are being corrected now. The new operational plan, ever since the Anbar campaign started, is to take an area, then move Iraqi soldiers in to hold it while the Americans move on. The fight has now been taken to the Syrian border. The old officer corps is being re-hired back into the Iraqi military, except for those Baathists who were guilty of crimes against humanity or expecially close to Saddam.

The next few months are going to give us a clear indication of whether or not the war is being won or lost. The elections coming up will be crucially important - up until now, every election has been for temporary governments, or for a constitution that is still subject to amendment. So people on the losing end of the election could hope for more negotiation and a better result in a few months. But the next one is the real deal. Next week, a government will be elected for a 4 year term. Then there’s no going back, and no changing it for a while. So, we’ll see how the people react. If the Sunnis come out and vote in large numbers, and as a result get a government that has enough representation of their interests to mollify them somewhat, then we may see a massive shift in support away from the insurgency. At the same time, the Iraqi army is finally getting up to speed, after a year and a half in which the Bush administration fiddled and approached retraining half-heartedly.

Also important are the attitudes at home. Despite what the left wants to claim, there’s no doubt in my mind that seeing the U.S. waver in its support for the war has been a huge boon to the insurgents, and this talk of immediate withdrawal has been a disaster for the war effort.

Imagine you are an Iraqi, and someone asks you to join the military, or the government, or even work in reconstruction. You know that if you do, and the country gets retaken by the Baathists or Islamists, you’re likely to be purged, perhaps along with your family. In that circumstance, your willingness to stick your neck out and help rebuild the country is directly tied to your belief that the new Iraq will survive. But you know that it needs the U.S. at this point to prevent chaos, and you note that some in the U.S. government are calling for withdrawal and calling your country a lost cause. Might you not just decide to sit tight and wait to see what happens?

Now imagine you are an insurgent. Life sucks right now. Every time you go up against the Americans, they kill 20 of your guys for every one of them they lose. You’re also running scared, because the people are starting to turn against you and inform to the Americans. Recruiting is getting tougher as it looks more likely that Iraq will survive as a democracy. Your supposed glorious bombing of the infidels in Jordan turned into a PR disaster. Perhaps you’re thinking that it’s time to lay down arms and work on a political solution.

But then you hear the Americans might pull out. Only 35% support at home. Half the government is starting to waver. And now you think, “It’s working! Omar and Bin Laden were right! The Americans might be infinitely more powerful than us militarily, but they are decadent and weak. They may kill 20 of us for every one they lose, but every soldier they lose hurts their war effort more than if we lose 100! God is on our side. The tide is turning.” Not only that, but if you quit the insurgency and the insurgents eventually win, they might kill you.

So now you fight harder, and the people don’t inform on you as much because they are worried that you might win and they will be killed, and recruiting gets easier because it’s easier to convince people that your cause is not only right, but that it will be successful.

In a war like this more than any other kind of war, support at home is crucial to victory. I think the administration has finally learned that by basically staying out of the debate, they have allowed the Democrats and the media to characterize this war as a debacle, a quagmire, another Vietnam, and that has heavily damaged support at home, and hence the war effort itself. So now they administration is fighting back, and it’s about damned time. If support at home can be shored up, it will help end the war in victory. The only other choice is to end in defeat.

3

Leave as quickly as we can. I don’t believe we are capable of doing anything but harm, and Iraq will never rebuild with us battening on them. I do think we owe them many billions in reparations, however.

4

Reasonable enough. It doesn’t guarantee success of course ( witness the ultimate failure of ‘Vietnamization’, though obviously under very different circumstances ), but it is decent strategy.

Now I’ve always liked you despite our policy/political differences Sam, but if there is one thing that has ever slightly irked me ( slightly :slight_smile: ) about your generally meticulously polite posts, it is a certain tendency to be more optimistic/pessimistic than I think is warranted depending on whether you are promoting/agreeing or poo-pooing/disagreeing with a particular POV. It’s not even a lack of qualifiers, which you are often ( appropriately ) careful to add in. It’s just that qualifiers or no you frequently seem to give the impression you’re so sure something is going to either fail or succeed.

For instance why would you ever assume the above? I see no evidence of it at all at the moment, not even an inkling it is moving in that direction. If anything the opposite - the military insomuch as it may or may not be becoming a more effective counter-insurgency force ( something even Saddam’s third-rate army was decent enough at - sufficient infantry on the ground helps ), also seems to be suffering from mid-1970’s Lebanese-style ‘militiaization’ to coin an awkward word.

About the only reason I can see for predicting such an outcome at this point is blind faith that the admittedly most formidable military in the world is going to overcome the myriad issues at play and whip their pet project into a reasonable third-world facsimile of themselves. I have no such faith, personally.

Not saying your prediction will turn out wrong - that might be the outcome. I just would never have the huevos to predict it based on where we stand now ;).

Not necessarily - simply short-term desperation economic desperation will often trump longer-term repercussions. Just as or more importantly sectarian and tribal loyaties might compel aligning with a “pro-government” faction, even if a unified, democratic Iraq is something you couldn’t care less about ( either positively or negatively ).

I do think nationalism is at work and there are real Iraqi patriots out there in the trenches, probably quite a few. But I wouldn’t downplay non-patriotic self-interest. Some embittered, militant ( not necessarily religiously militant ) Shi’a might be motivated to join the military because he figures his side is now top dog, his tribal leaders conveniently control the battalion he’s enlisting in and he wants to stick it to his old oppressors and to hell with their rights.

Or, just to add a different perspective, you might think those American bastards are getting in the way of me avenging my poor dead mother and righteously massacring the folks in the next neighborhood over who I think are tacitly responsible.

[quote]
and you note that some in the U.S. government are calling for withdrawal and calling your country a lost cause. Might you not just decide to sit tight and wait to see what happens?[/quoe]

Oh, absolutely. I certainly think it has an impact.

Doesn’t alter in the slightest that those that believe that is the right course ( I am not among them, yet ) have both the right and obligation to express their opinions as such. Public airing of disputes that might be demoralizing are among the necessary drawbacks to living in an open, participatory democracy.

I guess it won’t come as a surprise if I say that I think this assessment ( if assessment it is ) of the mindest of your average Iraqi insurgent is likely highly flawed ;). I don’t get the impression that overall insurgent morale is fraying seriously. Yet, at least.

Again, certainly. But again, as above.

Anyway not trying to pick on you. Just picking nits as I’m sort of in that mood right now. Messageboarditis.

  • Tamerlane
5

I tend to approach these discussions as I would a debate, and present my point of view. Of course there are questions, and possible paths to failure, and all the rest. When a qualifier is serious enough or my point is only valid within a small range of potential outcomes, I’ll point it out. But it’s not my job to present a perfectly ‘balanced’ picture every time I make a point - that’s up to the guys on the other side. Besides, if they are never willing to concede that they might be wrong, that their impression of the war effort could be faulty, then I’m operating from a disadvantage if I start my own defense half-heartedly and they don’t.

When discussing the issues with friends rather than in what I see as a formal debate in which I have to pick a side and debate it, I’m much more likely to offer my misgivings and discuss the issue with more balance. And if the opposition around here were a little less dogmatic and a little less hostile to my point of view, I might be willing to do the same.

My belief that the Iraqi army will turn out excellent is based on the fact that it is being trained by the best military in the world, will be armed with American arms, and backed by American intelligence, airpower, and logistics. Plus, the generally pathetic state of other Arab armies makes being the ‘best Arab army’ a pretty low bar to hurdle.

Gotta run to a Christmas party. More later.

6

Unfortunately, I do not believe that has been the plan all along. Only after the first year when the administration realized that they did need a plan (and should have heeded the advice from the professionals at the State Dept.) What plan they had was accomplished in May 2003. What that plan was I am not rightly certain.

This has become a sore point with me recently. I do not understand why it should take ‘an indefinite period’ to train the Iraqi army, and why a proposed timetable cannot be suggested for handing over operations to them. We have been able to train how many American soldiers since the beginning of this ‘conflict’? Yet we cannot accomplish the same with Iraqis, the majority of whom already had basic military training. (I do not know how well Iraqi troops were trained, but the average eighteen year-old in bootcamp obviously had had far less training.)

Support at home is meaningless unless we know what victory is. My greatest fear is that Bush and friends define victory as all insurgents, sorry I meant “rejectionists”, are ‘neutralized’. This is an impossible victory and allows them to remain in Iraq indefinitely. Their strategy does not suggest anything less than that either. Their definitions are meaninglessly vague and open-ended.

As far as the media’s characterization, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, …

I wish this was possible. We could pack up and be gone in a fortnight - and pipelines would be exploding before the first plane landed back in the States. I believe we are capable of doing something besides harm. We just need an administration that knows how.
At this point (actually after the fall of Bagdhad), I had hopelessly ridiculous expectations that the State Department and USAID would become the commanders on the ground.

AP

7

How much more damage will this administration do in the meantime ? How many will die on both sides, how much will be looted or ruined by us, how much more hatred will we create ?

8

Ever considered writing a grant?
IRAQ: Strategic City Stabilization Initiative (SCSI)

9

This is too much to ask of one person. I would set as a goal to have all US miltary and civilian elements out of Iraq by this time next year. I would make clear that that is to happen irrespective of the readiness, or lack thereof, of the Iraqi security forces both military and police. Then I would gather a large staff and give them two months to come up with a plan and another month to work out the schedule and cost estimates. At the same time I would get the leaders of Congress together and keep them up to date on the progress of the plan by secret sessions. These sessions would be briefed by the heads of the various staff units charged with the development of the plan so that they could get feedback as to the political feasibility of the funding of the plan.

I don’t see how it can be anything but trouble for the executive to develop a plan in a vacuum without consulting those who have to sell it and maneuver its funding through Congress.

10

I say don’t let the door hit us on the ass on the way out.

Iraq can never be won.

One more American death is too many.

Wasted lives for nothing.

11

All that is true, and still has little to do with whether or not the Iraqi army will turn out okay.

The quality or lack therefore of the Iraqi army will be wholly dependent upon whether or not it’s actually a well organized and led hierarchy representing a legitimate, respected, stable government. If it lacks that, it does not make a goddamn bit of difference what it’s armed with or who taught them how to run a platoon attack.

After all, the South Vietnamese army was trained by the best military in the world, armed with American arms, and was backed by American intelligence, airpower, and logistics. It didn’t exactly work out, did it? The Americans had to do their fighting for them for a decade, until they finally gave up. On the other hand, if the new Iraqi state becomes stable and can command the loyalty of a well-run army, it will be a good fighting force even if it’s armed with shitty Russian and French weapons.

12

You’re not training individual soldiers - although training a modern soldier takes a lot longer than six weeks of basic training. The problems with the Iraqi military are much bigger than that. They are:

[ul]
[li]The lack of a command and control infrastructure. A modern army needs this. The Iraqi military has never had much in the way of a good communications infrastructure, because Saddam kept chains of command tightly held. And what the Iraqis did have was destroyed in the war.[/li][li]Logistics. When the left harps on the stat that ‘only one battalian is capable of operating independently’, what they are talking about is logistics. There are actually dozens of Iraqi battalions capable of fighting on their own, but they can’t supply their own food, fuel, ammo, and other expendible field gear a military on the move needs. They have no airlift, no heavy truck transport, etc. The U.S. is slowly building up this capability, but it takes time.[/li][li]An NCO corps. The Iraqi military completely lacked a capable NCO force (non-commissioned officers). This is bing built up, but it takes time.[/li][li]An effective officer corps. The officer corps in the Iraqi army was made up in some part of people loyal to Saddam. When the U.S. took over, these people were all deemed untrustworthy, and were removed from the military. So the newly trained Iraqi soldiers have no one to lead them. Some of these old officers are now being hired back, and new officers commissioned. [/li][li]Tactics. The Iraqi army needs to learn modern military tactics. After you’ve completely trained a unit, it has to learn how to fight alongside others. You need wargames or field experience. Then they need to learn to fight as an army. This is not an easy thing to accomplish in a short period of time.[/li][/ul]

In short, the U.S. isn’t just training individuals, it’s training an entire army. They need to learn how to work together, how to support their efforts, how to coordinate between units, and all the rest. This is a problem on a whole different scale than just putting people through boot camp and handing them a rifle.

This is also why I say that, in the end, the Iraqis will have one of the best if not the best army in the Arab world. Because the army is being built from the ground up by the U.S. military, the best fighting force on the planet.

And back to those individual soldiers. In fact, it takes several years of training to take a raw recruit and turn him into a modern soldier. And for some, it takes longer. The Iraqi military will need pilots, special forces, technical specialists, etc. You don’t just turn out people like that in a few months.

Instead of shaking your head at the fact that Iraq didn’t have a modern army appear in a matter of months, you should be amazed at how much the U.S. military and the Iraqis have already accomplished. This is a huge task.

13

It’s not ‘blind faith’ - it’s a faith based on previous accomplishment. Underestimate the U.S. military at your peril. But sure, I have doubts. Before the war even started I said that if it’s screwed up, it’ll be the reconstruction that gets botched. As a Libertarian, I believe the government is not capable of ‘planning’ an economy or efficiently running anything. So I’m naturally skeptical of nation building. I could tell you a dozen different ways it could all go to hell. However, I believe that after a number of serious blunders, things are starting to settle in to the correct path, even if only through trial and error. Early mistakes are being corrected. Certainly there is enough chance of success to warrant sticking with the mission.

War is a serious business. I have a fair bit of disdain for those who stridently supported the war, and who now oppose it and want to quit simply because it’s difficult. In other words, if you had asked me before the war, “If three years from now there are 2,000 American dead and an insurgency in the country, but the country has had an election, ratified a constitution, and is about to vote for a democratic government, would you still continue the effort to win?” I would have responded ‘of course’. Because anyone who set the bar so low that the current conditions constitute ‘failure’ had no business supporting the war in the first place. I thought that the most likely scenario was going to be somewhat better than this, but I also thought there were a number of scenarios that could have turned out much worse. I still supported the war, simply because I thought that it was not only the best strategic move in the general war on terror, but that in the long run it would be better for the Iraqi people and the Middle East in general. I still believe that, while acknowledging that there was always a gamble involved, and even today it could really go in any direction. Wars are always messy and difficult to control.

Certainly these are also factors. I didn’t mean to suggest that my hypothetical was the be-all and end-all of what motivates potential Iraqi soldiers or insurgents. But it’s certainly a factor, and a pretty big one. As Bin Laden himself said, people gravitate to the strong horse. The opposition at home makes the U.S. look weaker.

Don’t get me wrong - I think everyone has a right to protest, and I don’t necessarily think it’s unpatriotic or treasonous or anything like that to oppose the war. But people who do oppose the war should understand the effect their opposition has on the enemy and the effort in general. If you understand that your opposition may embolden the insurgency and make life more difficult on the ground for both the Iraqis trying to create a free society and for the U.S. military, but still believe that your cause is just, then go ahead and protest. But at least have the honesty to admit that your protest does do harm to the effort of winning the war. (Not you in particular, Tamerlane. I’m speaking generically.)

Absolutely. And on my bad days, I sometimes wonder if Iraq doesn’t have to go through a civil war of some sort before it can finally lay the ghosts of the past to rest. God knows how I’d feel if there was some group in my country who managed to grab the reins of power and then brutalized me and my family for a couple of decades. If I suddenly gained power back, would I be able to turn the cheek for ‘the good of the country’? Especially if those people kept fighting and blowing up innocent people to maintain their power. I don’t know.

I will say I’m encouraged so far. The Kurds and Shiites have made significant efforts to engage the Sunnis into the political process. We have to give them credit for their willingness to do that, at least so far.

I also understand you’re not just talking about Sunnis vs everyone else, but score-settling at a lower level. And I agree that that is going on, and that it’s a problem.

Again, I was offering an example, not trying to describe their current mindset. I’m sure the real fanatics are just as motivated now as they’ve ever been. But there are also those in the insurgency who are merely jockeying for power. Ex Baathists, Sunnis who are fearful of their future in a new Iraq, etc. These people can be swayed. And it’s these people who have hard choices to make as to where their best interests lie. Efforts are being made right now to get these people to lay down their arms and join the political process. This would be much easier if they understood deep down that the U.S. will never let them come to power through violence. Talk of withdrawal and lost causes is very damaging to the task of getting them to abandon the insurgency.

The same also applies to the people funding the insurgency.

Not to worry. It’s refreshing to be able to have a civilized discussion over these issues.

14

Go to the UN with our hat in our hands and declare we have fucked up and we need help. Let’s put our country’s ego aside and stop this insanity. So we lose some credibility with the rest of the world, I don’t think we have all that much to lose to be begin with.

15

The New! Improved! Iraqi Army - combining the intellectual strength of Mike Tyson with the raw combat power of Steven Hawkings!

Sam, m’lad, even with all the caveats, yours is a rosy scenario.

If it is a strategic move, it is one of the utmost subtlety, invisible and stealthy. There being, as I’m sure you know by now, no connection whatsoever between the “terrorists” ante bellum and Saddam. Attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, we invade Costa Rica. Previously loyal allies become, at best, luke warm while the verbally hostile strap on weapons. The people we just recently killed at Fallujah were not our enemies five years ago. The terrorists were our enemies already, by what reckoning do you imagine our situation is improved by adding a whole 'nother classification of hostiles?

But of course! Its the win-winningest! If they can engage the Sunni minority in the poliltical process, they get to play Republican Poker: all your cards are dealt face up, he gets to draw twice, and deuces are wild for him. If they cannot, then they have every justification to beat the living snot out of them. Aren’t the Shia majority the legitimate rulers of Iarq? Doubtless. Doesn’t it necessarily follow, then, that resistance to the legitimate rule is “insurgency”? Without question. And are not “insurgents” precisely the same thing as “terrorists”? The Leader said so!

With all due, Sam, this is pure rah-rah. Effectiveness in combat, especially when measured by whomping an army that couldn’t have beaten Belgium in a fair fight, is a measure of nothing but that. It means D for diddly-squat in terms of nation building, poltical savvy, and education in the science of slaughter. A carpenter is not an architect.

ccwaterback’s plan is as good as any, which is to say next to useless. (With no offense intended to the esteemed cc) If the members of the UN should prove willing to sacrifice their blood and treasure to pull our roasting chestnuts from the fire, it would be a display of noble self-sacrifice of stunning dimensions. A pessimist, I find that unlikely. A pessimist, I am seldom wrong.

I fear the actual result will be more along the lines of declaring victory and running like hell at a snail’s pace, and then our carefully wrought and trained army can get down to the business of crushing Sunni resistance. The Sunni are boned, they have no friend but Allah, and Allah is otherwise engaged.

And let me be clear: if declaring victory should cause a grateful nation to look upon GeeDubya and the Republican leadership with adoring eyes and put forth a President for Life Amendment, then so be it. I’m entirely non-partisan when it comes to getting our people out of this shitpit. I will simply go behind the tree and puke my guts out, scream myself hoarse, and get on with it. Democracy ain’t for sissies, if my people are morons, they are still my people.

And thats what “supporting the troops” looks like.

16

I think this is a situtation that UN members wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. The UN ordinarily doesn’t step in to stop civil wars. The time for effective UN participation was before we invaded. That happened in that UN inspectors were on the ground examining Iraq for evidence of weapons and we kicked them out.

As far as I’m concerned Congressman Murtha is right. The present situation will not be corrected by military action and so it is time to get the military out. We should start planning to do that on a schedule that suits our present needs and cross the bridge of possible unsettlement of the Middle East by an Iraq civil war when we come to it. We cannot predict the outcome of leaving the Iraqis to settle their own future and so can’t plan for our response to what happens there.

17

This sentence should have read: “The present situation will not be corrected by our military action and so it is time to get our military out.”

18

I think if we sugarcoated it and frame it with enough propaganda we would be able to persuade the UN to take control. We could tell them how we are only concerned about the wellbeing of the Iraqi people, and we could offer coinage for the UN’s effort. If they still refuse, we could say we were just testing the resolve of the enemy.

Hey, I’m getting good with this war stuff.

19

What is the UN going to do? Be as effective as they were in Rwanda?

And in an operation of this size, ‘calling in the UN’ means calling in the…Americans. There are no countries in the UN capable of mounting operations on the scale needed in Iraq. So basically you’re saying leave everything the way it is, but throw a bunch of UN bureaucrats into the exercise. And while you’re at it, you get to give some power to countries like Syria who aren’t even sympathetic to a democratic Iraq.

Wrong. Read the 9/11 commission report. There were plenty of connections between Iraq and al-Qaida before the war. What there isn’t is a connection between Iraq and 9/11. None whatsoever we know of. But plenty of contacts with al-Qaida and other terrorists.

Or the Germans in North Africa…

Yeah, and the Italians weren’t our enemies before WWII, either. Was that war wrong?

You know, you put forward these simplistic sound-bite arguments against the war, and every time someone like me tries to take the time to explain how the Iraq war can help win the war on terror, you sputter and roll your eyes and break out the ‘m’lads’ and ‘Sammy boys’, and then go back to claiming that in fact there is no larger strategy. So I’m not going to bother trying again. But I’ll leave you with some poll numbers to chew on, from the Pew Global Attitudes Project:

Question: Is violence against civilian targets justified?

“Often/Sometimes” Before the war:
Jordan: 43%
Lebanon: 75%
Pakistan: 33%
Indonesia: 27%
Turkey: 13%
Morocco: 40%

“Often/Sometimes” July 2005:
Jordan: 57% (*)
Lebanon: 39%
Pakistan: 25%
Indonesia: 15%
Turkey: 14%
Morocco: 13%

(*) Since this poll, Jordan was bombed by Zarqawi, and now support for violent Jihad in Jordan has plummeted as well.

Question: How confident are you in Osama Bin Laden?

“A Lot/Some” in 2003:
Jordan: 55%
Lebanon: 14%
Pakistan: 45%
Indonesia: 58%
Turkey: 15%
Morocco: 49%

Question: How confident are you in Osama Bin Laden?

  • “A Lot/Some” today:*
    Jordan: 60% ()
    Lebanon: 2%
    Pakistan: 51%
    Indonesia: 35%
    Turkey: 7%
    Morocco: 26%
    (    )Since the bombing in Amman, support for Bin Laden has collapsed in Jordan as well.

Remember one of Bush’s claims right from the beginning was that he was going to ‘take the fight to the terrorists so we don’t have to fight them at home’. There were sound strategic reasons for this. One is that as long as the terrorists were killing ‘infidels’ in their home countries, support for terror in the middle east was high. That means more recruitment, more funding, less intelligence. But now that the terrorists are using their loathsome tactics against their own people in their own countries, suddenly Bin Laden doesn’t look so good any more. Support for Bin Laden and terrorism in general has plunged in almost every country since the Iraq war began.

I could go on and on describing the positive effects that have come out of this war. The U.S. is no longer seen as a spineless, cowardly country that bombs from the air and runs at the first sign of its own casualties - a belief that was fueling a lot of support for Bin Laden. Libya has renounced WMD and reformed somewhat. Lebanon is free. Syria is under pressure. The U.S. is gaining intelligence like crazy. Saddam is no longer instigating terrorists, paying suicide bombers, and generally acting like a destabilizing influence.

And, with luck, there will be an America-friendly Arab democracy right in the heart of the middle east.

Compare this to the likely result if the U.S. just packs up and goes home tomorrow.

Now imagine the Iraq war had never happened. Saddam is still in place, still thumbing his nose at the Americans. The U.S. has withdrawn all of its troops from Kuwait and backed down from Saddam. What do you think those polls of support for jihad and Bin Laden would look like today? And would the sanctions against Iraq still be in place? If so, do you think Iraqis would be better off? Remember, the same groups who are against the war today were largely against the sanctions as well, claiming that they were causing a humanitarian disaster. So would there be a humanitarian disaster in Iraq?

If not, we know what would be happening - Saddam would be rebuilding his WMD capability. The 9/11 commission, while finding no evidence of actual WMDs in Iraq, fround plenty of evidence that Saddam was preparing to accelerate development of them as soon as the sanctions were gone.

Would the no-fly zones be in place still? If so, what do you think Arab opinion of the U.S. would look like today? There would still be U.S. soldiers in Saudi Arabia. If the no-fly zones were removed, what would be happening to the Kurds and Shiites today?

Arab support for Bin Laden was climbing steadily until the Iraq war started. Given that trend, what do you think it might be today?

20

We were attacked by an alliance of which they were a part; not the same thing at all.

Pehaps he should have done so, instead of attacking a third party.

Even if it’s true, we’ve killed more people than they ever did; we’re going to kill more. We’ve also lost thousands of Americans ( since foreign lives are obviously worth nothing to you ) in this stupid war, and will lose more.

No, we are regarded as liars, mass murderers, corrupt and torturers. Some improvement. Also we are still cowards, since we made a point of attack a country whose military couldn’t fight back.

Lies, “gained” by paid informants and torture.

Why ? The Iraqis hate our guts.

Probably. The ones who are now dead sure would be, as would be all the women who are/will be placed under Sharia law; that’s over 50% of the population right there.

Probably, but not as bad as the one right now.

No different. If he manages another impressive strike it’ll go up; otherwise it’ll go down.

Not that it matters, since he’s winning. Saddam - whom he hated - is gone and America is bleeding itself and has already wrecked its reputation. Pretty close to a flawless victory.