> He obviously knows that the question isn't whether the American troops > will succeed in helping the Iraq succeed with democracy and peace but > whether the American people will give them enough time to do so.
I can see we have quite a different point of view here.
Obviously.
I don't think that Iraq is going to end well no matter how long U.S. Soldiers stay there
If we were doing the same things in Iraq that we did in Vietnam (which you obviously think is an appropriate analogy), you'd be right. However, we are not doing the same things.
The question that occurs to me is
How many Americans have to die there before you concede that jamming anything down the Iraqi's throat isn't going to work?
I know you want a number. But a number isn' t appropriate, here. Progress or lack thereof is the determining factor. Progress toward self-determination and self-government is what makes the difference. Should FDR have thrown in the towel after 5,000 casualties? 10,000? That wouldn't have gotten him past Pearl Harbor, Bataan and Corregidor!
If you think the January 30 elections in Iraq are going to be a sham, did you also think the same of the Afghan elections before they were held?
But here are a few items of progress. (1) The Iraqi troops and police performed better than they did in April. (Still not as well as we might like, but better.) (2) There are more Iraqi troops and police than in April. (3) The Iraqi troops and police are now in charge of their own background checks which should help weed out "insurgents." (4) Moqtada al Sadr and the Shiites have not been heard from this time around, so the military is almost entirely free to deal strictly with the Sunni and foreign "insurgents." (5) The Sunni political leaders are calling for the elections to be delayed to enable them to prepare better. This shows that more and more Sunnis are deciding that their best bet for achieving their goals will lie in the political not military realm.
IMHO Their democracy or lack thereof isn't our problem and isn't worth spending American lives on.
When their society can generate young men who want to fly airplanes into our buildings, it becomes our problem.
The Insurgency has been growing and growing more violent as time goes on,
mainly due to American arrogance ("They'll welcome us as liberators!") and
mismanagement (The chaos at the end of the war)
Actually, the evidence points to greater foreign involvement and resources. I know this is a terribly biased and untrustworthy source, but take a look at this: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/24/international/middleeast/25iraqcnd.html?ex=1259038800&en=85d8869dfff7cf7a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt
or, if you can't make that work, use this:
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?C359212E9>http://makeashorterlink.com/?C359212E9
Toward the bottom, you'll find: "There were also more than 500 letters from the families of insurgents who had been killed or wounded, asking for compensation from Mr. Janabi, said a military translator on the scene. They included the families of fighters from Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Syria, Algeria, and about 100 native Fallujans."
Sounds like about 4/5ths of the "insurgency" is from out-of-country. A lot of those out-of-country people would be coming after Americans one way or another anyway. Can you come up with another way of getting them?
Now Iraq is sliding towards breaking up into Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd and scattered whack-job Militias all fighting over how to make Iraq the perfect hell-hole. But they all are united on one point
They want the Americans out.
Can I take this as a prediction? Jay P. Hailey has predicted that Iraq will split up into three separate states without a central government as soon as the American forces leave?
But they'll come around when we smear a few more neighborhoods. Pile up another trainload of collateral damage. They'll love us then.
I'm sure they've also noticed who is sending in all he car bombs, etc. that have killed far more civilians.
> Assuming, of course, that the US adopts the same strategy for Iran that it > did for Iraq....
The U.S. cannot. It doesn't have enough of a military left outside of Iraq.
Congratulations! By quoting me out of context, my words appear to say exactly the opposite of what they meant! Did you enjoy beating on that straw man, Jay?
For those who don't want to take the time to go back through previous posts, I was responding to a statement by an Iranian General who claimed that the Iranian army was "well-prepared to defend the country [Iran]." My response was "Assuming, of course, that the US adopts the same strategy for Iran that it did for Iraq...." Apparently I assumed too much with regard to the intelligence of SOME readers by assuming that meant I actually agreed with the Iranian General that his country probably would be able to fight and even defeat the US if the US adopted the same strategy. As it happens, I expect the US to adopt a different strategy.
I just love it when these guys believe the US press' > characterization of Bush as an idiot!
Okay. Where are the WMDs? Where are the terrorist ties? They aren't there.
Oh, the troops keep finding them. Found some more in Fallujah last week. (Of course, I defy anyone to point me to a speech or major public pronouncement made before the war where the administration claimed that Iraq HAD WMDs. The claim was always that Iraq had WMD programs and materiels which had not been sufficiently accounted for and destroyed.)
As for the terrorist ties, from Ansar al Islam causing trouble for the Kurds in the north to Abu Nidal, and al Zarqawi in Baghdad, to $25,000 payments to the families of Palestinian "suicide bombers" in the West Bank and Gaza, these, and more, were all documented before the war, and were confirmed after.
So it turns out the rationale for the war was false in every specific (and as an aside the French were correct in about every specific)
Excuse me. But even the French did not claim the facts cited in the rationale for the war were false. They only claimed that it was not sufficient to go to war.
So what does he do? he fires the people who warned him in advance he was wrong.
False again. He fired the people who gave him bad advice. Powell thought he could persuade people at the UN who were unpersuadable (surprise, surprise, those people were bribed by Saddam Hussein using the UN's oil-for-palaces program! Fancy that!) Powell thought he could persuade the Turks to let the 4th ID go through Turkey. Oops. Rumsfeld wanted to go in with 15,000 trained Iraqi exiles to help act as translators and to help put an Iraqi face on the liberation. State nixed the idea so only about 5,000 got trained. The Pentagon worked with the Kurdish Peshmerga in a manner similar to what US SF troops did in Afghanistan. State tried to disband the Peshmerga, until the insurgency made it necessary to have SOME Iraqi forces available for assaults on Mosques used as fortresses. Reporters have repeatedly told of meeting State Dept. officials in Iraq who don't believe (and obviously never believed) that Iraq could become a democracy. I understand that ultimately, Bush is responsible for these decisions. But on the other hand, why would he want to keep an advisor who consistently gives bad advice?
Powell is a fine American in many ways, I think he has a record of stellar public service, and I think that he has, on balance been able to contribute to this administration as Secretary of State. But I also think that he was the embodiment of the Peter Principle when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and things only slightly improved for him as Secretary of State because he had so much trust and respect placed in him. Now that Bush has won re-election, Bush has earned enough trust and respect that he doesn't need Powell for that purpose. That means that Powell's failings become the dominant factor and so it is time for him to go.
Does he did for more information or different points of view? No he systematically eliminates everyone who sends him bad news.
You don't know that. You are simply parroting the liberal press line. Do you really think that Condoleeza Rice (who supposedly tutored him on foreign policy during the 2000 campaign) is suddenly going to turn into a mushy "yes-woman?" C'mon, you really believe that?
Oh yeah. There's a genius at work.
It's one thing to get rid of people who are giving you contrary points of view. It's another to get rid of people who have given you consistently bad advice and who are consistently leaking things to the press in a way that damages your agenda. Four years ago, I thought that Powell was the wrong guy to have at State (even though I knew why Bush made the promise to put him there). State needed someone like Rumsfeld to go in, grab it by the throat and start shaking. The Pentagon seems to get shaken up every few years. State has been stagnant for so long that I don't think anyone can remember the last time it got reorganized. I'm hoping that Dr. Rice will do the honors.
Iraq is a disaster for the United States. The idea of benevolent hegemony is the most egregious and vile miscarriage of American policy ever.
911 was a disaster. Iraq is on its way to being a victory--costly, messy, yes. But a victory, non-the-less.
American needs to worry about being free inside our own borders. Not about this "National Greatness" fascism.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Jay! The fascists and Nazis invaded countries so they could loot them and run them. The US invaded to establish democracy where none existed before and has sacrificed blood and treasure to do so. You're smart enough to know the difference.
9/11 would have been a much shorter event if the passengers on the airlines had been exercising their second amendment rights.
Agreed. So?
Look, I don't agree with Bush lockstep. Haven't yet found a politician that I can agree with that way. But that doesn't mean I overlook his accomplishments--especially that he has done more to free more people in this world than all of his critics combined.
if Bush was serious about the war on Terror why is Osma Bin laden still sucking on our air?
Are you sure he is? Yeah, I know those tapes keep coming out. But how much of them are cut-and-splice jobs or even some guy imitatng bin Laden's voice?
Because it's not about defending America. it's about establishing control and rule over folks hither and thither in the world
Free men don't need to rule over foreigners. That's a symptom of the fascist disease.
So, are you now making another prediction? That there will NOT be an election in Iraq? That Bush was just talking about elections there to be able to get re-elected himself?
Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
_______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
