You act as if we're there because we have to be. We are there because we want to be - not out of necessity. We could allow these countries to have their own armies, but we'd rather not take the risks. Also, we like having our soldiers in strategic positions across the globe in case of a crisis in a near-by area. I truley believe that W. wanted to go to Iraq for strategic reasons. There's no better place to have your army in the middle East than Iraq. With everything stirring in that area of the world, he felt our presence was needed & just found a reason to make it happen.
Yeah, I know. We're both right here. The main Al Qaida enemy, the well-funded and dangerous international faction controlled by Osama is hiding in the mountains of Pakistan. These are the ragheads that hit us in 2001. They are still out there and they are the prime threat to strike American soil again, because they have the money. The al qaida faction in Iraq, controlled by Al Zarqarri, are taking advantage of the opportunity to let terrorists in Jordan, Palestine, and Syria slip into Iraq and build cells of locals who forment unrest and kill Americans because these are American targets that they can get to cheaply. Since 9/11 it is very difficult for any but the most well-funded cells to get to the US or near US bases overseas. Security has been increased immensely. We must not get caught up with fighting the local cells in Iraq because they will be no further threat when we are gone. All we have to do to beat them is remove their targets when we leave. But we must continue the fight against the core al Qaida group that our "good friends" the Pakistanis allow to hide in their country. A country that already possesses the "Islamic Bomb" and is dangerously unstable and has a population that is Anti-American. Just like Iraq before it, Pakistan could suffer an Islamic revolution that would put a radical Islamic government in place, armed with nuclear weapons, and allied with Osama bin ladin, the Taliban and Al Quaida . . . who just happens to live there. I don't trust the Pakistanis. Pakistan is a nuclear powder keg with a short fuse and is a bigger potential threat to us than Iraq.
What good is an army that is bogged down trying to keep a lid on 26 million people with 120,000 soldiers? This force cannot quickly redeploy to another part of the theatre. And if you don't get there quick, it doesn't matter anymore. Our army is geared for fast overseas deployment from permanent bases here and overseas. But the ground units in Iraq are fully engaged in the field and in no shape for redeployment. Furthermore, the Iraq experience has shown that America fights best when featuring overwhelming air and naval power and using ground forces sparingly and only in advantageous situations. Nobody can compete with US airpower or contest a naval blockade. But they all possess light infantry that can give us a fight if we allow it. And guerilla resistance always give a modern army fits and should be avoided.
however, our president chose to fight "terrorism". these terrorists, hide out in mosks... use women and children as human shileds and use IED's in ambulance's... we are fighting a unconventional war....
I'm sorry, but it's been concluded time and again that the 'intelligence' (you're right, it definitely deserves quotes!) indicated nothing of the sort. We went into a country whom we were nothing more than 'suspicious' of having these capabilities, yet we continually ignore the ones that we know for a fact have them. To me, that is very fishy. Being as the title of this thread is 'The Future of Iraq', I thought I'd repost the excerpts from this very interesting article regarding such an idea that I posted in another thread. In my opinion, it's a pretty sensible account of the volatility and religious loyalites of the region:
That statement is misleading and wrong. It implies that the whole country is either against us or on the verge of fighting us in mass. When in reality, it's more like about 80,000 insurgents. The vast majority of Iraq's want peace and democracy, and are grateful for what we have done. Almost every American Military personnel that has served time in Iraq commented on how skewed the perception is, due to our media's portrayal. They said most Iraqes were on our side, and a lot of good things were happening, and has, and i think i heard that more Americans get shot in New Orleans then has in Iraq. It's all perception and spin control, and i think our negative coverage heartens the enemy.
red, how about this hypothetical: we didnt invade, and iraq is independent and reforming on their own. but al qaeda is crushing them, and blowing up their cops and trying to screw up their elections and generally hoping the new system of freedom they are starting falls apart into an islamic state of some sort. iraq is begging us to help them establish security so they can have a democracy. do we help them? isnt al qaeda our enemy and we want to kill them no matter where they are? (i have seen so many spellings of al-q, that i give up. i dont know how to spell it)
The vast majority of Iraqi's want a theocracy representative of their particular brand of Islam. The vast majority of Iraqi's don't even know how democracy works. His statement is not misleading if you consider that, while not every Iraqi 'civillian' is an insurgent, our military is responsible for the lives and safety of Iraq's general population. So while they may not be fighting a resistance of 25-26million, they certainly are having to look after them. I'd be very skeptical about that NOLA/Iraq comparison if I were you. Sounds like a bunch of crap to me. Plus, it probably takes no consideration of all the other ways that Americans are killed...such as carbombs and suicide bombings. Additionally, of all the men that I know serving over there, the ones who are most involved in the actual violent fighting are the ones with the more negative opinions of the current situation. The ones who mainly drive/gun in convoys don't seem to feel quite as negatively. But the ones that take prisoners and actually kill people seem to feel very unwelcome, and in general don't care if Iraq is ever free.
You missed the point. I was responding to a comment that stated that America invaded Iraq so that we could have a base of operations to move against our enemies in the middle east. I was pointing out that the troops in Iraq are fully tasked, indeed overtasked, and aren't in any shape to go off invading another middle eastern country. The numbers are arguable. I've seen no evidence to support these two sentences. Why aren't the Iraqis getting with the plan? The insurgency is growing and they are hiding in the population. If the 26 million Iraqis "want peace and democracy, and are grateful for what we have done", why do they protect the 100,000 insurgents? My feeling is that the vast majority of Iraqis are apathetic and don't know what they want. Even the ones that are glad Sadam is gone are very nationalistic and resent our presence. They seem to want a strongman to tell them what to do. Nope. Iraq war casualties U.S. CASUALTIES since March/2003: 1664 dead, 18,671 wounded NOPD Crime Statistics N.O. CRIME 2002/2003: 561 murders, 4179 agravated assaults
First of all if we didn't invade Iraq, Sadam would still be running the place as a secular muslim state, not an islamic fundamentalist state that Osama wants. They were neither allies nor enemies. Saddam kept a lid on all dissent when he was in power. Meanwhile we would still have air supremacy under the no-fly requirements and could strike any targets (Iraqi WMDs or alqaida camps) with airpower if we saw the need to. Secondly, al qaida only went to Iraq after the invasion in order to strike Americans and Iraqis who cooperate with Americans. The Sunni/Shiite civil war also going on has nothing to do with us or al qaida and has been going on for centuries. We just removed the heavyhanded controls Sadam had in place and our forces have not been able to keep a lid on the insurgency. The Generals all along have said it would take 500,000 tropps to secure the borders and lockdown every province. Finally, if the Iraqi had overthrown Sadam themselves and were invaded by Iran or al qaida or anybody and asked for our help, it might be a lot different. To us, we liberated Iraq from a tyrant. To many Iraqis, we invaded their country and sacked their capital, allowed the looting of the country and have overseen dreadful economic and social conditions for three years. They are deeply patriotic and feel humiliated. To them we are tyranical enemy invaders. Sadam was beast--but he was their beast. So they hate us. They might feel much differently if they had overthrown Saddam themselves, tried to install a democracy, and asked for our help. We would feel better about it too, because the Iraqis would at least have tried to earn their own liberty and would be more worthy of help in our eyes. Yes we must go after al qaida wherever we can, but not sit in Iraq and let them come after us. And we fight our kind of high-tech war, not their kind of guerilla war.
