Iraq was never a threat. Ten years of sanctions had crippled Saddm's economy. Ten years of UN inspections had eliminated his WMD's. Ten years of American no-fly zones left him with American airpower overhead at all times. He was on the outs with al qaida and ran a secular government, not an islamic one. He could have been left to stew in his own juices. The billions spent in Iraq could have been spent on covert and overt operations against specific al qaida targets. And we could be in a lot better position to meet the Korean threat. Kim is a deranged leader and could start a nuclear World War involving us and China. Kissing his ass is not working and he becomes more beligerent each week, issuing overt threats. We are going to have to reach out and touch that guy someday and it would be better to do it on our terms and with our timing. American possesses the most effective military ever assembled and it deserves to be deployed in a timely and smart manner that gives us all of the advantages. And if we must take American casualties it must gain us something significant. Iraq was never going to be worth the cost.
it could be 50 years. victory happens when iraq is a free state that is no threat to anyone, like kuwait or japan. the best case scenario is that it happens quickly, and causes a domino effect of freedom in the middle east. the worst case scenario is that iraq is uncontrallable and a shah or ayatollah dude or dictator takes over. and the less we show resolve, the more likely that is. if everyone is totally convinced we are not going to give up and leave, then they will know it is pointless to resist. we are so powerful that we can control iraq forever if we have to. our enemies should know that, and pussying out only encourages resistance to continue. you never let the enemy dictate what will happen when you are more powerful. you dont give up and leave if things get difficult, because the enemy will realize that making things difficult for you is how to get things accomplished. i hate to sound like a politician spouting rhetoric, but i think your mentality is exactly what the enemy wants, and is why they are continuing to kill.
nobody is going to start a nuclear war. and if they are, i dont see how we could stop it. i say we just keep quiet and do nothing with korea. they will fall apart financially and have a revolution soon enough.
Simple idea, but I'll reiterate: How can you be 'preventing' something that never had the capability to manifest in the first place?
Gawd. And you think this is what we need to do? Man I really hope the republicans run on that platform in 2008. Uhh, pardon me but Kuwait is not a free state, it is an islamic monarchy. America is the Borg? "Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated". You aren't paying attention to what is happening over there. Resistance is increasing. Give me a break. We cannot control Iraq right now. The situation grows worse every day. We are letting the enemy dictate the war right now! We didn't want to get bogged down in a guerilla war. It's their favorite strategy--not ours. They were supposed to blossom into a Jeffersonian democracy, remember. The Iraqis are only resisting us because we are there. Meanwhile, the real enemy, Al Qaida, is laughing their asses off at our folly. We can take down any country that is a threat. But we can't remake the world in our image, if they don't want it. We damn sure can't waste 50 years failing to admit a mistake while letting the house come down around our ears. It's a fools errand. Our military has been overstretched by this occupation and will be badly needed elsewhere in the next 50 years. The naivity of youth. You don't even remember who the enemy is. Al Qaida is still the enemy, Scooter. The Iraqis fight us because we are there.
But we didn't know? it was unlikely that saddam would attack us... but we didn't want to take that chance i suppose? I remember when I was first told I was being selected to go... my response was.. "what? why?" the answer? "because they hate our freedoms" hahahahaha! hate our freedoms? thats why were attacking a country? were fighting terrorists? all of them? man I was confused... i sure thought they hated us because of our ties with the saudi oil companies and the business weve had with them... or what about our heavy ties with israel? I thought THATS why muslim extreme terrorists hated us? wow must have been wrong.... My opinion on the war is/was very twisted at times. however, I chose to do this and to be here, even if that means putting my life on the line for my country for my fellow americans. did they ask me to? nope... do I care if they spit on me? nope .... its all in what I and other service members do. no one forced us to sign up. edi: i just realized i went off on a tangent... sorry... my initial point was we didnt know if they were going to attack or not, and the "intelligence" we had at that time said they would, or have the capability of doing so, so then we went in...
One main issue here seems to be the disagreement of the situation in Iraq. Some people think that things are getting worse by the day - more bombings, killings & uprise. Some people think that everything is great in Iraq - elections, peaceful picnics etc. Both sides have evidence for their case. If this issue could be resolved & agreed upon it seems to me that it would be easier to discuss the other issues. It's tough to discuss an issue when you don't even agree on the basic premises each party holds true.
you got me, i should have said free state OR no threat. my mistake. but you said it is al queda in iraq:
Good question, Navy. And who knows? Clearly, I have more questions than I have answers. It depends on what it is that America needs most. And also upon how one defines "too soon". Those definitions aren't clear. As usual, I believe a proper balance between two contrasting schemes works best when forming a strategy. It forces one to use the best parts of each plan and to drop the untenable ones. The extreme schemes here are: 1. Cut and run 2. Sit there until democracy blossoms even if it takes 50 years or until martin gets religion. What I advocate is a pragmatic balance between those two positions. And I tend to put the "proper time" balance point on the sooner end rather than the later. Both of the extreme schemes are fatally flawed. And I believe that what America needs most is to not be in Iraq when other dire issues must be faced. If Iraq ever was a threat to us, it certainly no longer is. So how do we disengage? "Cut and run" or immediate pullout is not possible or advantageous in any way. Many of the contingencies that martin fears might play out. Equally, "sit indefinitely" is a horrible non-plan with unclear objecives and perhaps unwinnable goals. We're still sitting in Korea after 50 years and in Germany and Japan after 60 years. Staying until democracy blossoms in Iraq is going to keep us there forever. This is an objective that dooms us to decades of pouring billions of dollars and thousands of American lives into trying to keep a lid on an Iraqi civil war that was going to happen whenever Sadam died anyway. These people sacked their own country when we removed their dictator and have spent three years tyring to kill our soldiers and blow up their own infrastructures. If they wanted democracy and freedom they would have done like the Japanese and Germans and cooperated in the rebuilding of their country. But they did not. Democracy has to be earned. You can't just give it to somebody if they don't have the yearning for it. America conducted a revolution to be free of a monarch and established a democracy. Many countries have done so since then. Why didn't 26 million Iraqis revolt and overthrow Saddam and a few hundred thousand Baathist loyalists? Because they don't understand democracy and they didn't have the courage. In that part of the world, every country is ruled by a strongman. The Iraquis know that Sadam will only be replaced by another strongman. Whenever we leave, be it next year or 50 years, it is altogether likely that Iraq will be ruled once again by an Islamic strongman. This country is cobbled together from three peoples who hate each other and they are just going to have to fight this one out. We don't need to be in the middle of it. All we are doing is allowing the factions to band together against a common enemy before fighting each other again. Iraq is the oldest civilized nation in the world and the people are very proud and nationalistic. It forces them to go against their best interests (cooperating with us so we can go home quickly) and to engage in repelling the "invader". No, we can't stay there until a Jeffersonian democracy breasks out because it isn't likely to happen. These people are going to have a civil war and either divide the country up or a strongman will emerge and clamp down on everybody. Until we let this happen, WE are only serving as the strongman at our great expense. We need to leave this mess to the Iraqis. We will probably have to do the same thing that we did in Vietnam-- Vietnamization. In this fashion we just started transferring responsibilty for government services to the Vietnamese. Agency by agency, province by province, whether they were prepared to meet the responsibility or not. We couldn't stay forever and we basically forced the Vietnamese to step up to the plate for their own good . . . because we were leaving, and quickly. It ain't pretty and it ain't optimal, but it let us disengage and get back to the Cold War which was far more important. The Vietnamese didn't get it done, fought their civil war, and lost. The Iraqis may do the same, but its their country and their fight, not ours. I don't think the Iraqi people will ever step up and take charge while we are there. If democracy is in Iraqs future then they will have to find the courage to take it for themselves -- we can't shove it down their throats or even serve it up on a golden platter. Nobody wants to in Iraq forever. We need to be controlling the timetable for withdrawal, not waiting on the Iraqis to become reasonable.
