| Author | Post |
|---|
Tank
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 309 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 30th, 2006 08:18 pm |
|
kavips wrote: There are several posters, frequent in the past, who hopefully still read this thread. For I would like to ask a question of some of those like Tank who served in Vietnam. All agree that Iraq is a quagmire; we differ on how to solve it. The problem in Vietnam was not how well the Americans fought. I think it was a Discovery Channel documentary that stated the every engagement the Americans fought, we won. Every. Yet we still lost the war. In Iraq the same dynamics seem to be taking shape. Yes we actually won every encounter and when it seemed like we were losing (such as the beginnings of the Tet offensive) we turned it around. Could we have won the entire conflict? I think so. It's not that we lost the war. We were'nt allowed to win. Political pressures influenced the military decisions, as it has in every war we fought. Sometimes the political pressures are on one side and sometimes the other. In Iraq, I think wwe were undermanned and undersupplied until things caught up with us and found that we were floundering. Given more manpower in the beginning and if we were ALLOWED to win, we would have come up better. Once we toppled Saddam we accomplished the mission. Then politics came in and we tried to establish an "American" style of government. That's where the "world powers" should have come into play. It would have succeeded then.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 30th, 2006 06:59 pm |
|
Your Viet Nam analogy continues to fall down for many reasons. I have to leave soon so I can't get in depth.
1. Iraq is heading to separation not unity.
2. Iraq has no long term history of unity between these groups thrown together less than a century ago by the colonialists. They don't particularly like or identify with each other. There are long term grudges between some of the groups.
3 Saddam exacerbated these divisions with his brutality.
4. Foreign influences are stirring up the aforementioned divisions and attaching the institutions which could unite them.
5. The majority of Iraqis are not ready for us to leave. Not only do polls show that but two elections. The candidates who want us out do not come close to getting the votes. Otherwise Al Sadar would have the largest party.
6. The people are not fighting us. They are fighting each other. We get in way of them killing each other and take a couple dozen casualties a week. In the height of Viet Nam we were the main targets.
7. Viet Nam had two sides. Iraq has 20. They can't even get together enough to have a real civil war right now.
8. Previous post on the subject of military differences.
Last edited on Sat Dec 30th, 2006 09:50 pm by davidlanderson
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 30th, 2006 06:46 pm |
|
Well, I am not part of the Viet Nam generation. I too would like to read their take a first hand observation is valuable. Of course none of us were part of the Civil War generation, but dillegient study allows us to learn its lessons. I hope anyone with an informed opinion will participate.
I think we all agree that economics is a basis for resolution. That is why the terrorists and insurgents are both disrupting economic targets. That is why we need a short term plan for security. We need a clear and hold strategy. Not hold indefinately, but for about 6 months. The President says that if we tell people in advance how long we are doing this for they will just wait us out. Exactly what I want. I want security in Iraq while we train the locals. If people prosper, they tend to get along just because of self interest. We just need a window of managability to allow the government to get it together. Believe me, they want us gone as soon as possible. We have 90% of the money to rebuild Iraq unspent because of security concerns and corruption.
Last edited on Sat Dec 30th, 2006 07:09 pm by davidlanderson
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 30th, 2006 09:56 am |
|
If you ever get the chance, follow this thread back to its beginning, months ago.......
There are several posters, frequent in the past, who hopefully still read this thread. For I would like to ask a question of some of those like Tank who served in Vietnam.
All agree that Iraq is a quagmire; we differ on how to solve it. The problem in Vietnam was not how well the Americans fought. I think it was a Discovery Channel documentary that stated the every engagement the Americans fought, we won.
Every.
Yet we still lost the war. In Iraq the same dynamics seem to be taking shape.
We all hate losing...... So the question is how to win. If we aren't winning militarily, we need to switch to an area where we can win.
That has to be in economics. In our own history, our own Civil War was won by economics, even though the consenses among historians, is that the South had better soldiers and generals, at least in the beginning. The North had industry, food, financiers, transportation hubs, etc.
I don't think I am going out on much of a limb when I state that as soon as the Iraqi's start working for themselves, and bettering their own welfare and that of their families, their interest in IEDs will wane.
For America, is it better to have a Moslem state dependant on us economically, than one fighting us to make us leave..........
And now my question for those in Vietnam: If America had left earlier and assisted the reunification of Vietman with financial aid, and humanitarian help, would the Vietnamese have gone along with it?
t
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 30th, 2006 04:18 am |
|
The truth is that I looked at the forums in the other states and while some individual posts are excellent, I am impressed with the overall level of the Delaware Issues forum. The thinking that goes on here is first class. Well, most of the time. None of you take a back seat to anyone. You are as thoughtful as any group of national columnists.
Now to take a small break from the high minded level normally expressed here.
Ding, dong, the dictator is dead!.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 29th, 2006 09:42 am |
|
I did click on to the link in David's post and did read the mayor's statement.
At first I was disappointed in the mayor's opening, thinking it was another rally-the-troops Rumsfeld endorsement, but became intrigued as he made rather moderate proposals.
What intrigued me was two of his ideas were posted in this forum around December 11. David, I believe you remember that post. But the poster in this forum had an additional ten ideas than did the mayor.
Perhaps someone can invite the mayor to our forum, since we seem, my friends, to be on the cutting edge of things to come.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 29th, 2006 01:42 am |
|
There is a continuum between steadfast courage, bull-headedness, and stupidity. I believe the President is a bit further down the line then Mayor Koch sees it.
The mayor misses the point that most proponents are not simply pushing to pack everything up and come back. It ignores the majority of the points the ISG made (as do many opponents of any change in Iraq strategy, hoping against hope that simply our presence will be enough for the insurgents to simpy give up) about any possible solution being a multi-tiered approach.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 29th, 2006 01:31 am |
|
Fred, I say Amen. Please read the Mayor's plan and tell me your take.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/12/27/124023.shtml?s=tn
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 29th, 2006 01:29 am |
|
I agree with the concept of changing their culture by show casing the positive aspects of ours.....but we can't afford to stay over there for the generations it will take to effect the change.
It is in the short run that we have to make some choices. Staying the course, even if you call it by the new approved phrase "a new way forward", is not going to work. Surging may or may not work...it has to have a very specific purpose, measurable, and a plan for the possibility of success and failure. A surge is going to come with some costs, both in the short term and long term.
And David...maybe you missed the exchange, but Amen has many meanings, not all religious....whether it means "I believe" or "it is true", so feel free to use it when ever you want.
Last edited on Fri Dec 29th, 2006 01:35 am by Fred
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 29th, 2006 01:08 am |
|
I could not agree more Kavips. I would say Amen, but the secularists might be offended somehow. I would not that the Islamic extremists always launch a campaign of intimidation against the women. It would help if women felt secure in expressing themselves in these cultures. I recall the rape and murder of young women in Iran around '79 or '80 who participated in protests against the new regime.
The reason why they were raped is because it was forbidden to execute a virgin. They were rounded up by the thousands, raped, and then executed. The protest movement of the young women died that day. Those are the type of people we are fighting. Can I say it again, we can't stop until we win.
Read Mayor Ed Koch's article for an interesting solution. Read beyond the initial praise of President Bush; it gets more interesting and thought provoking.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/12/27/124023.shtml?s=tn
Last edited on Fri Dec 29th, 2006 01:29 am by davidlanderson
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 28th, 2006 08:17 pm |
|
Today, the senior administration examines our role in Iraq. Where are we, where did we come from, and where do we go from here?
One area that will not be discussed, and should be, is how does the US regain the high ground in its struggle against religous fundlementalism that is bent on our destruction.
Religion is not a tangible asset. You cannot kill it by piling up bodies. In fact it feeds on such tactics. As you make it tougher on your opponents, they turn to religion to stiffen their resolve.
Religion is an intangible asset. It’s etherial nature defies solid description, but all of us recognize it when we see or feel it.
To borrow a concept from science fiction, we need to fight this war in its own dimension, not in our’s. We need to take a legitimate stance on why we feel that our modern values are better in the long run than those proposed by the fundlementalist elements, and let our ideas battle their ideas in the world arena. And we need a simple cause, a silver bullet, to drive that point home.
Let me ask you this directly. How can anyone seriously take a country who denigrates a majority of it’s citizenery due to the accident of gender?
If you want to split your opposition, you confuse and divide them. Since women pervade all societies, women are the method of how we will isolate and diminish the power of the fundelmentalists who remain in current control of certain countries. It will take time. It will take brave individuals willing to die, as did Atefeh Rajabi.
We can win in Iraq, we can win in Iran, but not with the Neocon(munists) methods. If we just said, “look, all we want to do is give women the chance to live their lives. Help us and we’ll get out,” our solid intelligence leads regarding IED’s, snipers, and terrorist cells would increase.
Voice of America needs to start this campaign now. Remember how the battle of ideas destroyed the Soviet Union? It is undeniable. Everyone wants freedom. From the rest of the world’s perspective, “freedom” is what this country stands for……….We respect the freedom of religion…………But we also respect the freedom to choose our own destiny or even our own religion,……….. as the ultimate gift………. given to us from our own Creator.
Last edited on Thu Dec 28th, 2006 08:19 pm by kavips
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27th, 2006 02:13 pm |
|
What I will give you is that they talked out of both sides of their mouth about almost every issue about the Iraq war....giving the answer, or a half-answer, that would please whoever was asking the question.
David....these are quotes that Rummy said....Do you not believe he said them?
- I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that.
- Interview with Steve Croft, Infinity CBS Radio Connect, November 14, 2002 [1]
- And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.
- TownHall Meeting At Aviano Air Base in Italy, February 7, 2003 [2]
The administration learned early on to manipulate the media quite well. If you give a speech, and you put two statements together...."Saddam is a bad man" and "WMDs are a threat to all of us" many would think the President/SecDef/SecState are trying to make a connection.....but one can later claim that they did not make such a connectio. It is the same thing with the war in Iraq. They have at times talked about the the "long war", implying the "war on terror" but trying to put out that the war in Iraq would be a relatively quick thing.....Remember, Donny refused to allow DoD to plan for Phase IV operations, giving the reason that we would not be there that long.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27th, 2006 01:18 pm |
|
I am sick and tired of hearing nonsense saying that this administration expected the war to be over quickly and the troops coming home. Here is an excerpt from President Bush's so called mission accomplished speech. This speech was vetted by Don Rumsfeld.
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America."
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27th, 2006 09:51 am |
|
It sounds like some of you lack the confidence in the ability of American people to determine right from wrong. On a different tack, my experience with government leads me to place my trust in the American people.
We do have a republic, and it works, (whether it is" more perfect" or not). But if you track through history, each time our government strays away from the desires of the American people, we tend to stumble down the wrong path.
There is a human tendancy to trust leadership. Jonestown comes to mind. But often the leader uses the power ot those who back him to achieve goals that benefit him, not those people who follow him. This is when absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Here, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin come to mind.
As for the citizens, I am afraid that I do not know any individuals who consider themselves members of the fawning or raving masses. Most of the "masses" I know are individuals like you or me who are struggle to survive to the best of their ability. After trying so hard to keep our heads above the rising water, we are not prone to throw everything away on some drop-of- the-hat plan. We are deep thinking and cautious.
"You can fool all of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people, all of the time.
We need to listen more to Americans and look less favorable on our leaders. We should not applaud our leaders, we should applaud what they do for us.............
About Chaffee, and Lieberman..........that is puzzling. Good point. I'm looking into it.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27th, 2006 03:30 am |
|
| If I am not mistaken the goal was "to form a more perfect Republic". That implies better than anything before it
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27th, 2006 03:15 am |
|
One of the reasons we are called a Republic versus a Democracy is that our country is structured not to succumb to mob rule. If 80% of a crowd wants to lynch someone it doesn't make it the right thing to do. For this reason I look to leaders elected to represent the country's best interest and to deflect the dejour rant of the emotional and dissillusioned mobs. If 80% of the people really felt we are doing the wrong thing in Iraq , following your logic there would have been no one standing in the last election who supported the troops being there. Lieberman would have lost and Chaffee would have won-so I take those breathless statistics with a grain of salt.
Still , in all, you make a thoughtful argument on who wins and loses -in the long run....
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 26th, 2006 06:56 pm |
|
Hartlyboy wrote: With respect, I believe you have missed the whole point of what we are going through now by trying to compare the expected end result to the same result we looked for in past conflicts. Pacifying Iraq is only a step along what appears to my impatient brethern as an endless path of mayhem.
It might well be a much longer struggle akin not so much to WWII as to the Cold War which lasted for decades and cost us dearly in material treasure as well. It is my firm belief that we are engaged in a battle of religions and cultures with opponents with clearly defined goals [our enemies] and those who lack the will [ourselves] to see things through if it can't be solved in an hour like on TV. When Ayman al Zawakri, #2 in al Qaeda says he believes their resolve helped the political change in this country, it's not a good thing regardless of the passionate and personal hatred the Left has for the current administration.
My only hope for this country is that whoever we call leader has the resolve to fight and not be swayed by the vocal and posturing masses [as they were back when we were in Vietnam]. We 'won' the Cold War despite the politicians losing Viet Nam but there seems no Reagan equivalent in the future of politics in the US.
Anyway, too heavy a subject for Christmas Eve -I need to go be in the mood while we still are able to celebrate the reason for season without being beheaded......
Both Hartlyboy and David bring up some good points. However there is an underlying premise that is necessary for their argument to stand, and that argument is faulty. In other words, their foundation needs shoring up.
The argument of both posters, and I am grateful they took the time to make it, is put best by Hartlyboy above when he states: "My only hope for this country is that whoever we call leader has the resolve to fight and not be swayed by the vocal and posturing masses."
This is the eternal 'call' of any minority group. One could experss it as the same hope against slavery in 1840's, as the same hope against southern segregation in the mid 50's, as the same hope against excessive taxation in the late 70's, all of which eventually came to pass. Examples of what did not come to pass, are victory in Viet Nam, are a pre-emptive strike against the Soviet Union, and a reversal of Roe vrs Wade.
So what is the difference here: why did one category win and the other lose.......was it the "game plan" that caused the first category to suceed and the second to fail?
No, the first category of arguments was bought by the American people. The second group was not. "We, the people" must forever be in charge of our administrations. Not vice versa. When one has, as Hartly says, vocal and posturing masses in opposition, one must be very careful to determine if those masses reflect the majority's will, or are a bunch of quackos whose antics bely their small sliver of support among the American people.
80% of Americans feel we need to get out now. In real numbers, 8 out of every ten people feel we need to get out now. That carries to 80 million out of 100 million abnd to 240 million out of 300 million. To do any other option, than what the American people want, who are the sole arbitors of this country, as in "We, the people," ........... is to directly flount everything this country fought and spent blood to stand for.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Dec 25th, 2006 02:37 am |
|
With respect, I believe you have missed the whole point of what we are going through now by trying to compare the expected end result to the same result we looked for in past conflicts. Pacifying Iraq is only a step along what appears to my impatient brethern as an endless path of mayhem.
It might well be a much longer struggle akin not so much to WWII as to the Cold War which lasted for decades and cost us dearly in material treasure as well. It is my firm belief that we are engaged in a battle of religions and cultures with opponents with clearly defined goals [our enemies] and those who lack the will [ourselves] to see things through if it can't be solved in an hour like on TV. When Ayman al Zawakri, #2 in al Qaeda says he believes their resolve helped the political change in this country, it's not a good thing regardless of the passionate and personal hatred the Left has for the current administration.
My only hope for this country is that whoever we call leader has the resolve to fight and not be swayed by the vocal and posturing masses [as they were back when we were in Vietnam]. We 'won' the Cold War despite the politicians losing Viet Nam but there seems no Reagan equivalent in the future of politics in the US.
Anyway, too heavy a subject for Christmas Eve -I need to go be in the mood while we still are able to celebrate the reason for season without being beheaded......
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 24th, 2006 08:06 pm |
|
As important as every single life is, you miss the point that the overall argument is not solely about this great cost. It is neither only about the dollar cost of the war. It is not even about the loss of the United States' world wide prestige.
The Battle of the Bulge, or the Battle in the Atlantic, or even the various Pacific battles, were all part of a larger war. Some, like Midway, relied on as much as a good dose of luck as much as good intel....we did lose some battles, and many good men along the way, but the overall purpose, the overall reason was clear.
These things are missing in Iraq. First, there are the attempts to make the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan part of a larger war....but where? What other battles are going on? I guess there is the somewhat hidden agenda of moving on to other countries once we tidy up Iraq and Afghanistan (Iran and Syria, maybe Pakistan)....but the overall purpose is not there, or, at least, it has changed and morphed continuously through the war.
GWB and his administration have made a series of mistakes that have compounded each other, and have made Iraq what it is today. No amount of trying to blame the media or the fickleness of Americans can change that. They ignored, bullied, or ridiculed those who brought out the possibility that things might not go as they say...remember Rummy saying it would be over in 6 months?
Iraq might be lost, and the responsiblity rests with the President. If we manage to pull it out, it will be in spite of his leadership, not because of it.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Dec 24th, 2006 04:59 pm |
|
| I often despair of the many well meaning people in this country today who have no sense of the history of what we have gone through to be able to post little nastygrams about the President and be able to take whatever position they like on any subject they like without being herded into concentration camps or worse. The battle we have going in Iraq and Afganistan are not cost free in terms of the members of our military but do we all forget the recent anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge in WWII when we lost 20, 000 dead in the matter of a few weeks and almost 80,000 wounded? One battle in one theatre in one war. God help us if we had the current crop of 'leaders' and media in place at that time.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 24th, 2006 08:08 am |
|
Do not be afraid to win. We will have to pay a price to win. It is no mystery how many troops are needed. In Viet Nam we would not do certain things to win. Yes, more troops were needed, but we could not win unless we were willing to go into the North and topple the government. Doing so would have put us in the French position of tracking the Viet Cong through the jungle. We were better off leaving.
Iraq is an entirely different situation. Viet Nam did not affect us. Iraq does. Viet Cong did not attack us 450 times while we were on authorized UN patrols, Sadaam did. Viet Nam did not have wmd programs. The David Kaye Report proves Iraq did and we have found hundreds of shells from old stockpiles which could have fallen in the hands of terrorists.
Iraq's leaders killed millions. They funded terrorists. If we leave too soon, the batists will be back and a civil war will boil over into the middle east.
No, I stand by every word. We need to win and we can--no must.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 23rd, 2006 04:26 pm |
|
GWB is the master of the "misunderstatement" which is where some of these "great successes" stories come from.
For instance...he has claimed, and quite rightly so, that some percentage of the country is not wracked with violence, and is peaceful, and that the violence is limited to a few areas. The problem with that logic is that Iraq is mostly desert. The peaceful areas are those areas that are inhabited mainly by camels and scorpions. It is those few, densely populated areas such as Baghdad, where 25% of the country's people live, that have the problems.
The idea of pulling back to 5 or so major bases is not a bad idea. Decreasing the number of targets, decreasing the number of troops but being there to support the Iraqis if and when they decide to take control of the violence in their country.
No matter how hard we try,we can't want something more then the people who live in the country want it. We can help, but if they don't want to be a country, if they don't see themselves as Iraqis more then Sunnis, Shiites, or Kurds, they will never be successful.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 23rd, 2006 07:26 am |
|
There is some elements of truth in both David's and Fred's posts. Iraq is a large country. Yes, there are many positive stories about things going right in that country. Yes, most of the stories we hear are of a war gone badly.
Why the dichotomy, is there something fishy going on? No, it depends on which area you are focusing on. If you focus on areas where there is little fighting, where there are very few American troops, if any, than the positive rosy picture is a snapshot of reality. This is a majority of the country.
But, where the Americans are stationed, sectarian fighting is out of control. The area around the Green Zone, is a war zone. Life for those inhabitant is much worse under the American occupation.
There are now more insurgents than when we first invaded. This contradicts David's view that things are getting better. Based on the trend of the last three years, more troops added will cull more "freedom fighters" out of the local population to oppose us. Things will stay the same.
David says he doesn't want another Vietnam. Yet he is falling exactly into the same trap McNamra did when things did not go as well as he wanted. " Let's send more troops."
No matter how many bytes we extoll in our electronic postings back and forth to each other, the cold fact stands that 80% of Iraqis want us out. We supposedly went there to save Democracy. It is time we let Democracy take hold and pull back to 911 bases (come quick, need help), and give that country what 80% of its citizens want.
The pursuit of any other option makes us no different than the Russians in Afganistan, the Sudanese in Dafar, the Germans in Poland, and the Japanese in Manchuria. We may act less brutal, but our claims to be fighting their war for them, fall on deaf ears.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 22nd, 2006 05:25 pm |
|
No, David....your posting is full of platitudes and slogans, and I wish many of the things that you say were true, but they are not. If you want to take one comment from one article from one visit by Gates to Iraq as "positive"....well, you are probably then qualified to be in the President's cabinent, as you would be ignoring every other aspect of the battle for the past 3 years.
You say it is getting better....How? What measurement are you using, or are you just going with the "gut" feeling?
I also take offense to your "we need to stop playing". 400 Billion Dollars, 30K (at least) dead Iraqis, 3K dead US and 25K wounded are not the result of a playground. We have not been playing, and to suggest otherwise is disrespectful.
Our power and ability may not be there anymore, or it may come at a very dear price. The President and Rummy couldn't find the money to pay for the equipment that is broken now, and continues to break and wear out at a great pace....where is the equipment going to come from for a renewed offensive? Further, this is not a problem where all you have to do is add more troops....as difficult as that might be (changing the rules/laws to allow greater use of the Guard/Reserves, overcoming equipment shortages, ignoring the long term effects this will have on the military) adding the troops would be the easy part. Getting the political solution, which must be accomplished before any hope of peace can be achieved in Iraq, remains the number one issue.
It is possible that sending the right amount of troops would have worked at one point....the insurgency has grown, the Iraqi government has not stood up, and there does come a tipping point where you can't go back. We may be there now. The issue is how much money, how many lives do we spend to see if we are there now?
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 22nd, 2006 02:01 pm |
|
We all know it will work if done agressively. It is interesting that when Gates went over to Iraq, he asked the troops. Soldier and Marine from private to Col. no matter the area (but esp. in the triangle) told him they needed more troops to keep order.
Are they all wrong? God bless GWB. He might be a little slow, but he's right.
Now that Rumsfeld is finally gone, maybe we can win this. It should have been done two years ago. We would be in draw down by now. Now are enemies are embolden and growing. The reason why I think we need at least 200,000 troops in is to get that 10 to 1. We have to stop playing. It is far from too late. We have power and the ability. Not to use it would be spitting on the graves of our fallen brothers and sisters. We have no option but to go for victory.
I can live with defeat, but I can not live with failure. If we don't take a chance on winning, we are accepting failure. Failure would haunt worse than Nam. If indeed it turns out too late, at least the world will see we went down fighting and will make others thing twice. They will say the Americans have spirit even when the odds are against them and they learned not to hold back next time. If we cut and run, we will destroy the moral of troops and have a mass exodus when we need more troops. We need to show the same committment that our brothers and sisters in arms have shown. Other world powers have lost before, but they recovered if they mitigated the defeat.
I am not only concerned about Iraq; I am concerned about the other threats. If we cut and run, how will China, Iran, n. K. (for LCR), and Russian nationalists view us. Even if we lose because we had bad strategy and lousy partners in Iraq, we can at least look good. It is a perception of strength that keeps the peace.
I don't think we will loose. Gates said their was more progress than he thought. Things are moving in a positive direction but it is going to be a long haul. Let's win. A super power does not have the luxury of despair. We need to mine the borders with Iraq and Iran and Syria. We need to be serious. If these insurgency leaders won't negotiate with us and accept amnesty, we need to start killing or capturing them. When they are on the chopping block, when their families are rounded up and placed in holding for questioning, they will talk with us. We need to tell them all we want to do is leave with honor which means a stable Iraq. They will have to negotiate.
Everytime a bomb goes off start rounding up the family of the bomber as material witnesses even children. Interograte them. The kids can be sent to Disney world or something for a week, but with the prison scandal, they will have visions of torture in their heads. 5 year olds with underware on their heads. Then send them back with money, toys, and candy. The radicals will be scared they are compromised, the others will see our hearts. It will cause confusion. We will be able to gather intelligence and start heading off these guys.
We need to bring firms in and rebuild the infrastructure.
Last edited on Fri Dec 22nd, 2006 02:15 pm by davidlanderson
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 21st, 2006 05:41 pm |
|
I guess President Bush is going to go it alone....against the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, against the advice of the now retiring GEN Abiziad (gee.....a GEN choosing to retire in the middle of an assignment as a war time commander....what do you think that means?).
C'mon...let's hear a defense of him...I really want to hear how his cheerleaders (some of the loyal 12% who think the President's plan of sending more troops is actually going to work) have to say.
It is very interesting to hear that the GENs DID want troops a year or six months ago, and they did not get them....and now they are telling him don't bother, it is too late, NOW he wants to send them.
Thanks, GWB.
Last edited on Thu Dec 21st, 2006 05:46 pm by Fred
|
Halvah
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | Haifa, Israel |
| Posts: | 326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 20th, 2006 01:15 pm |
|
[size=Fred is correct. There are many different levels of fatwahs and the adherents to them are many and varied. Certain sheiks, mullahs, ayatollahs and other assorted clerics have as much varied influence on an equal amount of the population. There are certain fatwahs that transcend the segments and others remain limited. For instance, the fatwah that was issued on Salmon Rushdie has less influence and would evoke less action than one issued on Western influences in general. The same would go for the Pope. It would evoke less of a response, however, there may be a few overzealous radicals who may opt to act on these given the opportunity. Here is a general statement that is accepted by a wide segment of the Islamic world. The Saudi Shaykh Salman al-'Awdah, a leading figure in crafting Islamist doctrines of Global Jihad wrote in one of his articles entitled the "End of History": ]
[size=“… I pray for Allah to witness with our own eyes his victory over the dominant infidel nations of the West. We wish him to show us and our descendents the collapse of these nations that controlled the Muslims, enslaved them, dominated their minds, ruled their media, and destroyed their economy. May Allah take revenge on them. The oppressors are the swords of Allah on earth. First Allah takes his revenge by them, and then against them. The same as Allah has used, in Islamist eyes, the][size=United States][size= in order to destroy the][size=Soviet Union][size=, so he will take revenge against the Americans by destroying them”]
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 20th, 2006 12:24 pm |
|
There are different levels of fatwas, just as there are different levels of fatwas. For instance, those clowns who protest servicemen dying in Iraq and blame it on our society's ills...they call press conferences, and in effect issue "fatwas", and some of their sect believe them. Most people ignore them.
If you look through the fatwas, an advice column is sometimes more appropriate. Wanting to know how to charge people for troubleshooting to be in accordance with the Koran, proper clothing, whether if you are in the same house as a television that is showing un-Muslim shows makes you unclean.....all covered by one fatwa or another.
Interesting that the JCS are not giving the thumbs up for the President's surge plan, but even more interesting that they are going public with their disagreements. They are basically looking at what can be realistically accomplished with the additional troops, but perhaps more importantly, what would happen afterwards and where it would leave the military. Too many people have said the military is stretched way too thin, but some seem to think we can stretch it a bit more.....like a rubberband, however, there is a breaking point.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 20th, 2006 05:57 am |
|
So it was a fair comparison to contrast a 'fatwa" with say. a press conference?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 20th, 2006 01:35 am |
|
You first have to understand what a fatwa really is...it is simply a legal defination or answer by a Muslim scholar. There are literally thousands of fatwas out there, covering every single aspect of life. Devout Muslims seek rulings on such life and death issues as the proper length of pants (really) and whether the laser removal of a unibrow is being a good Muslim.
The point if that almost any scholar can issue a "fatwa", so there is no way to ever get an exact defination. There is no central clearinghouse, so if a radical Iman in Pakistan issues a fatwa about the killing of a certain group of people....his followers probably will follow it.
There are also conflicting fatwas, as well, just as there are in almost any religion.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18th, 2006 01:35 am |
|
Vindicator wrote:
I find it interesting that as each day goes by, the war looks less and less likely to be won in a military sense. Just by swapping a few words of Vindicator's sentence, one can understand why the Iraqi's hate us so much. While we argue the beliefs of Moslems, I am sure that they are arguing the beliefs of their enemy, America.
See for youself.
I think that we can agree that ALL Americans are NOT the same, but a MAJORITY of them seemed to be on board with the invasion thing, at least supporting it in theory if not some form of action. I don't mean signing up for Iraqi duty but it has been demonstrated that the "man on the street" supports the Iraqi campaign financially. Wealthy and educated families in Conservative America have been donating money to the various factions. Even with the divisions in American politics, I think that they are still united in waging the war against Iraq, Iran, and Moslem countries. Does anyone have any idea of the number of public statements that Bush has issued?
With just this subtle switch, one can understand why we are fighting a force that fanatically believes in their cause. It is time we quite monkeying around. It is past time to unleash America's greatest weapon. Let us quit this piddly military engagement and use our economy to placate their animosity. We, the greatest superpower ever to exist on this planet, can pull it off.
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 463 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17th, 2006 02:25 pm |
|
Fred wrote: If you accept that all Muslims are the same, that they are all driven by the same idealogy, that they all have the same motivations....then Santorum's comments make sense. His comments ignore the bloddy divisions within the Muslim world.
I think that we can agree that ALL Muslims are NOT the same, but a MAJORITY of them seem to be on board with the terrorism thing, at least supporting it in theory if not some form of action. I don't mean strapping on a bomb but it has been demonstrated that the "man on the street" supports the jihad financially. Wealth and educated families in Asudi Arabia have been donating money to the various factions. Even with the divisions in Islam, I think that they are still united in waging the war against America, Israel, and the Western powers. Does anyone have any idea of the number of fatwas issued?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17th, 2006 12:22 pm |
|
There was certainly a lot of sour grapes in Santorum's comments in that voters rejected much of what he said and stood for. If you accept that all Muslims are the same, that they are all driven by the same idealogy, that they all have the same motivations....then Santorum's comments make sense. His comments ignore the bloddy divisions within the Muslim world. Now, Iran may in fact be a threat, but he ignores the fact that our adventure in Iraq has strengthened their hand and has weakened ours, both from a moral and physical capability.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 16th, 2006 06:08 am |
|
His statement will forever stand next to many of his fellow republicans, who upon leaving, bombasted the administration and republican leadership for costing them their jobs, basically.
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 346 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12th, 2006 01:29 pm |
|
| Don't forget Senator Rick Santorum who gave a most heartfelt and truly moving oratory on the floor of the Senate in his farewell address. Some have called him the "new Churchill" (Winston, that is).
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12th, 2006 04:50 am |
|
Now this is a real leader...
Senator's final days pay tribute to troops
By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 11, 2006
A politician's final moments in public office can define their legacy.
Lawmakers who lost their November races chose different ways to use their waning time on Capitol Hill -- some finishing legislation or positioning themselves for a future run.
Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio's last task was more solemn.
"My goal has been to do one tribute for each serviceman, and after I lost the election, it became apparent that was going to be difficult," the Republican told The Washington Times. "It is something only a United States senator can do, so that presented a great sense of urgency."
So Mr. DeWine spent his last hours delivering more than 75 floor speeches in honor of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, completing a longtime goal of memorializing the more than 150 from his state who have perished in those wars.
It is a task he began in 2002, when an Ohioan became the first serviceman killed in Afghanistan, but one he pledged to finish before leaving after 12 years in the Senate and more than two decades on Capitol Hill.
"It is the mark of our colleague from Ohio, the kind of person he is ... that he would come to the floor of the Senate in his last few days," said Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican. "[To] focus on others, focus on those who have given the ultimate for their families, for our country and for our future."
While most of his departing colleagues spent last week backslapping and lauding their own accomplishments, Mr. DeWine, 59, remained in the chamber late each night paying homage.
"I believe it is the least we can do in this Senate," said Mr. DeWine, who voted for the Iraq war in 2002. He lost his seat to Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown in part because of his support for the conflict.
The tributes did more than list a person's name, age and service. Most lasted several minutes and included details, such as how 27-year-old Sgt. Justin Hoffman teased "the love of his life," girlfriend Teri Price, that he would propose "as soon as he stepped off the plane on his way back from Iraq." Or how Pvt. Samuel Bowen's sister, Consuella, has not erased messages he left on her answering machine.
Mr. DeWine remembered Pvt. Adam R. Shepherd as "someone who could brighten any day," and lauded the 1993 wrestling championship that made Maj. Ramon J. Mendoza Jr. a Buckeyes sports legend.
The narratives were crafted through detailed research, much of which was done during funeral services the senator -- whose daughter was killed in a car wreck 13 years ago -- regularly attended. The tributes often included quotes from family, friends and teachers.
"The story is not about me," he said. "Every day for the rest of their lives, these families will think of their lost father, their lost son, their lost husband."
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12th, 2006 02:56 am |
|
I hate to say it, but Kav made more sense in that last post then the last dozen articles I have read. I don't agree with the 51/49 troop mix because it would dilute our effectiveness and keep them from being independent. I do think that they would benefit from greater U. S. embedding as the ISP reccommended. That is the same concept.
The problem with the 3 state solution is that all the ethnic groups are not neatly divided in some Apartide arrangement. Bagdad is a Sunni, Shiite, and minority (Christians, Jews, Turks, and more) city. I agree with the Beltway Boys that in the short run, we need to surge troops to stabilize the Capitol. If your capitol is not under control, you can't govern. The rest of these suggestions are moot.
I still have no disagreement with Fred on the difficulty of staying. I just don't agree that withdraw can work before stability. The reason why the Iraqi's don't like the report is they know it would be a failure if taken in total. Failure scares them because it would be their lives lost. This could be a blessing in disguise because it could focus them to get serious and act like leaders with a nation in crisis instead of politicians dividing the pie.
If they were serious 2 years ago, we could be in bases providing emergency support.
The good news is that a coalition is forming to vote no confidence in Maliki's government. They claim to have the votes; they just need to settle on a Leader. My prayers are with them. No one wants them to succeed more than I. I could very likely be one of those surge troops.
Last edited on Tue Dec 12th, 2006 04:57 am by davidlanderson
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 02:24 pm |
|
David.....I have read that the Iraqis are not happy with some of the 79 items, mainly because they feel we are telling them what to do, and they consider it an afront to their independence. I wish they would consider the Soldiers and Marines we have dieing for them an afront, as well.
The report is a starting point, and it is important to keep pointing out that even Baker/Hamilton don't say that if every point is followed it will work. Reading between the lines one could even say that they are saying it may be too late.
I think increased logistics support is needed, but there is a very big problem with giving them "everything we have"....if Iraq fails, and the entire Mid-East falls into war, we are fighting against our own equipment. Now, most of it is pretty technical, and the Arabs traditionally don't like to share knowledge among each other (knowledge is power), so training of subordinates is not ingrained as it is here, especially of advanced systems.
I believe the President is getting a few reports from different parts of the Administration this week...I think State and DoD are both giving their suggestions. It will be interesting to see their take on it, especially given that they have had time to see how the public (and the President) have taken to the first report.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 08:16 am |
|
Here is what needs to happen in Iraq:
First of all we need to develop an elitism among the Iraqi army.
A. We combine all forces 51%American to 49% Iraqi.
B We give them access to everything we have got. Armor, airbourne, intelligence.
C. We replace their weapons with our better ones. (of which we control the spare parts)
D. We stop bean counting: whatever they want we get it for them.
Secondly:
We give Iraqi's ownership over their economy.
A. Create and fund a job corp to put youths 14 to 21 at full employment. Create public works as we did in the 30's in this country.
B. We require our contractors (Haliburton & Co.) to employ 49% Iraqi's. Great works develop great pride.
C. We do what we did in Alaska. Every citizen gets a piece of the oil revenues on a yearly basis.
Third: militarily.
A Any troops not special forces embedded with Iraqi troops, we pull immediately using a two phased withdrawl.
B. The first phase is withdrawl to a regional base, from which they can be rapidly deployed in case of emergency. Sort of a 911 base. Call for backup.
C. If not used, then we mobilize stage 2 and bring them home, or deploy them elsewhere in the world where they might be needed.
Fourth:
We propose the formation of 3 strong states. Set up a schedule in 8 years allowing them to vote for independence or unification. Each state will be responsible and accountable for it's citizenery, its tariffs, it's internal security.
Sunnis stabilize Sunnis. Shiites stabilize Shiites, and Kurds, well they are there already, having benefited from the no fly zone for 14 years.
This should be our plan. After this, if the Iraqi's insist on their own descent into hell, we need to let them run their course. We had a similar plan in Vietnam. What happened there was that as the local Vietnamese support faded away, we stepped up to take on their battle. All must never lose sight that this is their battle, not ours. It is their loss if things do not turn around for them. Not ours. We won what we set out to do with some of the best men and women ever put on this planet.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 04:49 am |
|
From WBOC's website
My Tribute to Newshound....Critics of ISG are not only in the U. S. Most Iraqi leaders seem critical as well.
12/10/2006
BAGHDAD (CBS/AP)- Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on Sunday harshly criticized the bipartisan report recommending changes to U.S. war policies, saying it contained some "very dangerous" recommendations that would undermine the sovereignty of Iraq.
Talabani, a Kurd, said the report "is not fair, is not just and it contains some very dangerous articles which undermine the sovereignty of Iraq and the constitution."
He singled out the report's call for the approval of a de-Baathification law that could allow thousands of officials from Saddam Hussein's ousted party to return to their jobs.
"There is an article to bring back the Baathists to the political scene, which is very dangerous," he said in an interview with reporters at his office in Baghdad.
Other top Shiite and Kurdish leaders have disparaged the Iraq Study Group report. Sunni Arabs said they agree with the report's prognosis of Iraq's problems - but not the proposed cure.
Reaction to the 96-page document released Wednesday has underlined this nation's political and sectarian fissures, signaling the magnitude of the task ahead for a Bush administration anxiously searching for a change of course in troubled Iraq.
The divisions over the report, reflecting Iraq's ethnic and religious fault lines, center around some of the most highly charged issues afflicting today's Iraq - national reconciliation, sharing oil wealth and the role of neighboring nations in efforts to end Iraq's problems.
They also come at a time when serious doubts have been raised on whether the ruling Shiite-led government and its leader, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, have the strength to place the nation on the road to stability at a time when | | |