The Iraq War v.4

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

But, by that argument, are you also saying the Iraqi government can ignore what is being pressed upon them by our government now? Apart from the fact that they've been ignoring our agenda all along.

We're not pressing htem to do anything they don't want to do. Remember, it was the Iraqi people who held elections and voted in Maliki and his government with majorities showing up at the polls in every region of the country and it is the Iraqi people who have stood up to the insurgents and Al Qaeda and turned them out of their country (with the assistance of the US military).

Yes, we're asking The Iraqi government to get moving on national political reconciliation, but as past expereince has proven, national political reconciliation has very little to do with maintaining peace in Iraq. Right now the government of Iraq wants the US there to help them secure their country just like we were needed in Bosnia.

[purplehawk]

Those elections and the Iraqi government are little more than a sham in my opinion, purple thumbs and titles for Bush to make a to-do about. What's the point of electing a government that can't - or won't - govern?

[monster_mom]

So why have approximately 77,000 Sunni turned their backs on the insurgents and signed pacts with coalition forces?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/articl...Pact_With_U_S_

[purplehawk]

Oh, I know about those agreements. The Sunni fought alongside the U.S. to rout al Qaida forces out of their regions, and that's a good thing. But have the Sunnis and Shia signed an agreement to get along with each other? Have either group approached the Kurds in the North? Have the Sunnis banned from the government actually come back to work? Have the Shia done anything about minimizing their allegiance to Iran?

There are so many variables that haven't been addressed, Mom, that I think it's way too soon to be claiming any kind of victory - or even rapproachment between the peoples of Iraq themselves... which have, historically, been as much or more of the problem than have the outsiders swarming the country.

I've spoken at length about the costs of this war to our own country in terms of credibility and the respect of our global neighbors. We've lost any claim to the moral high ground with our just reputation as a violator of Geneva and our own laws regarding the detention and treatment of detainees. We've lost precious freedoms our own people have long cherished and have only a couple of Keystone Kops-style terrorist "busts" to show for the loss.

And, finally, there is the ownership of this war. It isn't my war. It isn't the war of a majority of the American people when 7 out of 10 of us wanted it to be over last year, if not several years before.

The Iraq War, like everything else these days, is a highly partisan endeavor. It is Bush's war, the Republican Party's war, and the rest of us just want it to go away and be done with it.

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

Oh, I know about those agreements. The Sunni fought alongside the U.S. to rout al Qaida forces out of their regions, and that's a good thing. But have the Sunnis and Shia signed an agreement to get along with each other? Have either group approached the Kurds in the North? Have the Sunnis banned from the government actually come back to work? Have the Shia done anything about minimizing their allegiance to Iran?

The Shia turned their backs on Iran once they realized that Iran was leading them down a path they didn't want to take. They are now exposing the Iranina munitions pipelines and shutting them down.

Many Sunni have returned to their jobs in the government. Oil revenues are being distributed to reconstruction projects and jobs and employment opportunities are expanding, due in part to efforts by the Sunni.

I think it is unreasonable to expect the Shiia and the Sunni to sign a peace pact - they've been at it for close to 1,500 years. I'll settle for no longer killing one another.

The Kurds have been living as a separate nation within a nation since the early 90's. I expect that their role in the central government will increase as time goes by.

There are so many variables that haven't been addressed, Mom, that I think it's way too soon to be claiming any kind of victory - or even rapproachment between the peoples of Iraq themselves... which have, historically, been as much or more of the problem than have the outsiders swarming the country.

No one is saying that the work is done. But he doom and gloom is neitehr appropriate nor accurate. The Iraqi's, with the help of the coalition, are rebuilding their country almost from scratch. They've turned tehirbacks on violence which is a huge step in the right direction and, at least at the local level, are governing themselves. We ought to do whatever we can to give them the chance to succeed.

And, finally, there is the ownership of this war. It isn't my war. It isn't the war of a majority of the American people when 7 out of 10 of us wanted it to be over last year, if not several years before.

I don't care what the polls show. We had and still have an obligation to leave Iraq in better shape than we found it. After decades of abuse Iraq is finally free from the bonds of opression. Abandoning them now when they are at their most vulnerable would be morally wrong.

The Iraq War, like everything else these days, is a highly partisan endeavor. It is Bush's war, the Republican Party's war, and the rest of us just want it to go away and be done with it.

Thge Iraq war is being fought by and large by the sons and daughters of hard working American's. American's who appreciate and respect the sacrifices their family members have made and are making. Bashing the war and the men and women who are fighting it certainly is a partisan battle, and that is shameful.

If we pull back now and Iraq descends into anarchy the mess that results will be worse then what we saw in Baghdad on a bad day. American has finally stoof up to the terrorist bullies of the world and told them to back off. If we give in before the job is done we will be telling every terrorist just how much we're willing to sacrifice and they'll know that outlasting us won't take much.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

The Shia turned their backs on Iran once they realized that Iran was leading them down a path they didn't want to take. They are now exposing the Iranina munitions pipelines and shutting them down.

Many Sunni have returned to their jobs in the government. Oil revenues are being distributed to reconstruction projects and jobs and employment opportunities are expanding, due in part to efforts by the Sunni.

I think it is unreasonable to expect the Shiia and the Sunni to sign a peace pact - they've been at it for close to 1,500 years. I'll settle for no longer killing one another.

I think that is the definition of a peace pact. Where are you getting this information?

Thge Iraq war is being fought by and large by the sons and daughters of hard working American's. American's who appreciate and respect the sacrifices their family members have made and are making. Bashing the war and the men and women who are fighting it certainly is a partisan battle, and that is shameful.

I don't see things quite the same way, Mom. I honor the men and women of our armed forces. As I've said before, my dad and grandfather served during the two World Wars, even when they were despised and treated badly by a segregated military and country.

This war is different, however, and it is a partisan war supported by less than one-third of the American people. They were sent to Iraq to fight a war our country had no business engaging. That doesn't mean I negate them or the sacrifices they and their families have made. It does mean that I despise the partisans who wanted this war and used the first opportunity that presented itself to engage it. That is the real shame.

If we pull back now and Iraq descends into anarchy the mess that results will be worse then what we saw in Baghdad on a bad day. American has finally stoof up to the terrorist bullies of the world and told them to back off. If we give in before the job is done we will be telling every terrorist just how much we're willing to sacrifice and they'll know that outlasting us won't take much.

I don't buy that. Giving the terrorists a thumpin' is not what this war is about, or what it has ever been about. "Before the job is done?" How many times has the "job" changed to suit the politics of the matter?

[Alastor]

I'm reopening this thread now.

Before we continue with the discussion, there are a few things I want to make clear.

• The war in Iraq is not a private affair of the President of the USA. It's the whole nation's, like it or not. Posts implying that the President is wholly responsible for the war are not allowed.
• Discussion about the pros and cons of the war can not be censored on the grounds that it hurts the feelings of veterans or currently active forces. No claim that expressing one's views on the war is unpatriotic, or worse, will be tolerated.

Offenses of the nature described above will carry a 15-day forum suspension instead of the usual five days.

[USNAGator91]

Thanks, Alastor. The conditions are eminently fair while allowing a healthy discussion and debate.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by USNAGator91

Thanks, Alastor. The conditions are eminently fair while allowing a healthy discussion and debate.

Ditto what he said. ^^

A new L.A. Times/Bloomberg National Survey suggests that Bush has lost the military families. Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a 6 in 10 majority concluding the invasion was not worth what it has cost.

Poll "The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war's fifth year. "Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does. "And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed. "'I don't see gains for the people of Iraq . . . and, oh, my God, so many wonderful young people, and these are the ones who felt they were really doing something, that's why they signed up,' said poll respondent Sue Datta, 61, whose youngest son, an Army staff sergeant, was seriously wounded in Iraq last year and is scheduled to redeploy in 2009. 'I pray to God that they did not die in vain, but I don't think our president is even sensitive at all to what it's like to have a child serving over there.'"

I've wondered for some time how much more these families could take before they break with the president. It looks like we're there.

[purplehawk]

We have some breaking news. British PM Gordon Brown made an surprise visit to Iraq today to announce that the U.K. will turn over Basra Province to the Iraqis in mid-December.

Britain's contingent of 4,500 troops in Iraq will fall to 2,500 by the spring.

U.K.’s Brown makes unannounced visit to Iraq

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

We have some breaking news. British PM Gordon Brown made an surprise visit to Iraq today to announce that the U.K. will turn over Basra Province to the Iraqis in mid-December.

That's wonderful news!

[purplehawk]

Yes it is. See? Even I can post good news.

Now, about the reverse side of that coin... what do you think of the poll I discussed a few posts up?

[Mundungus Fletc]

There is some doubt here about what the 2,500 troops are there for - there are enough to defend their base but not enough to do much else. I suspect it's PR.

[mariebeth83]

Originally Posted by Mundungus Fletc

There is some doubt here about what the 2,500 troops are there for - there are enough to defend their base but not enough to do much else. I suspect it's PR.

It would seem like better PR, at least to the wider world, if they were all going home. I guess they could be staying on as support for the Iraqis or they might be moved to other areas in Iraq? I don't know.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by mariebeth83

It would seem like better PR, at least to the wider world, if they were all going home. I guess they could be staying on as support for the Iraqis or they might be moved to other areas in Iraq? I don't know.

Normally it is at the discretion of the Iraqi government to request forces to augment domestic forces for security. I would be inclined to think that there would be concern that a hand-off would possibly be an invitation for insurgent attention and a "stand-by" force to assist in case of an outbreak of violence might mitigate the status of the area as a soft target during the transition.

[purplehawk]

Yesterday's Los Angeles Times has a reality-check for us all:

LA Times "The U.S. troop buildup in Iraq was meant to freeze the country's civil war so political leaders could rebuild their fractured nation. Ten months later, the country's bloodshed has dropped, but the military strategy has failed to reverse Iraq's disintegration into areas dominated by militias, tribes and parties, with a weak central government struggling to assert its influence. . . . "'Iraq is moving in the direction of a failed state, a highly decentralized situation -- totally unplanned, of course -- with competing centers of power run by warlords and militias,' said Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group. 'The central government has no political control whatsoever beyond Baghdad, maybe not even beyond the Green Zone.'"

Stories like this one lead me to believe we have accomplished very little in Iraq, beyond stringing the whole mess out, long enough for Bush to avoid admitting error.

[Chris]

Was that an op-ed or was it a regular news article? I'm not registered over there...

I find it hard to sort through all the available news and opinions, especially with so much of it apparently contradictory. We see good news in the form of troop drawdowns from Britain and lowered casualties, but then we see reports like that where it says nothing's really changed. It makes it hard for me to believe anything, to be honest.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

Yesterday's Los Angeles Times has a reality-check for us all:



Stories like this one lead me to believe we have accomplished very little in Iraq, beyond stringing the whole mess out, long enough Bush to avoid admitting error.

Actually, their power structure is becoming more unified and the government is gaining authority by virtue of domestic security forces gaining control of areas. As to "disintegration into areas dominated by militias, tribes and parties", to some extent it has never been anything other than that. Even under SH there was this type of regional division and separation as well as competition. The idea that Iraq was a Western style unified nation is a misnomer. All paid tribute to the King, but this idea that they were unified under a "strong man" is not true. Integration into a common nation is much more feasible in an electorate than under a dictator. This type of writing has an obvious agenda of defeatist rhetoric, but lacks a certain honesty in its phrasing and blatant omissions.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by chparadise

Was that an op-ed or was it a regular news article? I'm not registered over there...

I find it hard to sort through all the available news and opinions, especially with so much of it apparently contradictory. We see good news in the form of troop drawdowns from Britain and lowered casualties, but then we see reports like that where it says nothing's really changed. It makes it hard for me to believe anything, to be honest.

That was excerpted from a news article.

Originally Posted by Lupe

this idea that they were unified under a "strong man" is not true.

What makes you say that?

This type of writing has an obvious agenda of defeatist rhetoric, but lacks a certain honesty in its phrasing and blatant omissions.

I don't see that. The writer, Ned Parker, seems pretty honest. He certainly isn't saying anything most of us don't already know.

[WitchHunter]

Originally Posted by puplehawk

Now, about the reverse side of that coin... what do you think of the poll I discussed a few posts up?

As I said before, opinion alone is meaningless. Just because a large number of people share a particular opinion does not make that opinion more valid than any other opinion, regardless of who those people are. Debates on any topic must be based on facts and logical analysis, not popular belief.

Stories like this one lead me to believe we have accomplished very little in Iraq, beyond stringing the whole mess out, long enough for Bush to avoid admitting error.

Does the story provide any evidence to back up its claims? I'm not registered at the LA Times, so I can't read the full article. Also, just out of curiosity, has the LA Times ever given a supporter of the war an opportunity to present their argument, or at least to counter an article that opposes the war?

I don't see that. The writer, Ned Parker, seems pretty honest. He certainly isn't saying anything most of us don't already know.

What he's saying is what most people already believe, not what they already know.