<p>It seemed so obvious that invading Iraq would lead to a quagmire we could never exit honorably and that we’d up the sectarian violence and no exit would be possible. Bush’s own father saw that. What a sad situation. At least we did finally really leave Vietnam, maybe the only place we have left.</p>
<p>“At least we did finally really leave Vietnam, maybe the only place we have left.”</p>
<p>Yes, and the US has been paying that price ever since in terms of lost credibility. And also a few million people lost their lives as a result of our turning our back on an ally.</p>
<p>When Musharif was debating whether to support the US against the Taliban, he specifically cited Vietnam as an example of the United States’ lack of resolve and willingness to throw an ally overboard. If we let the same thing happen in Iraq and yet another blood bath ensues, it will be a cold day in Hell before any other government whose help we needs will be willing to assist us.</p>
<p>This statement is a perfect example of not taking into account the ramifications of us leaving.</p>
<p>OF COURse it is useful to discuss WHY we are there, because, gee that might have to do with the Defeating the Enemy tripe, Victory hogwash, etc</p>
<p>And after we left Afghanistan, gee, we finished that mission really well, it has reverted to what it was before</p>
<p>so, was AL Queda there before we invaded? no, they weren’t, how did AL QUeda get there then, we let them come, if it is truely as bad as we are being let to believe</p>
<p>But as for what is really going on in Iraq, with the information being cherry picked just as it was before the Bush invasion, how does the administration think anyone really believes what they are telling us</p>
<p>ANd having dones such a poor job for 4 plus years, are we to expect that suddenly, they will get it right</p>
<p>Again, to not think about WHY we went in is foolish</p>
<p>TO not think about what brought us to this mess in the first place is foolish</p>
<p>And because of such poor planning, lack of imagination, etc, we are in a mess and here we are, with the only people giving the prez advice are the ones that totally agree with him, everyone that didn’t walk lockstep was either pushed out or quit</p>
<p>Invading Iraq lost us credibility and goodwill around the world. The terrible thing is that anyone should have seen this coming (an irreversible quagmire)and we did it anyway. There is NO excuse for rushing headlong into a war where it looked like there would be no way to get out. We should have learned something from Vietnam. And we can’t maintain a permanent military presence everywhere.</p>
<p>Yes, and a terrific thing happened to our credibility by supporting Musharraf in his totalitarian regime in Pakistan. After all, he’s the epitome of the democratic system in a majority-Muslim country, is he not? You know, forget about the whole Chief Justice scandal, the fact that he just barred a former Prime Minister from permanently re-entering the country due to his ability to challenge Musharraf politically, etc. He’s a “good guy,” and doing “heckuva job.”</p>
<p>By the way, whether we withdraw or not, Iraq is going to suffer from the effects of uncontrolled population movements triggered by sectarian violence, and the consequences of such actions. The insurgents are going to continue to hammer away at the Iraqi government. Meanwhile, LTG Dubik states that the Iraqi Security forces will be fully operational in a year-and-a-half. If we are to assume that the goalposts are not continually moving and the ISF will be ready by 2009, and if we want Iraq to be self-sustaining, we need to begin a withdrawal process that matches the progress of Iraqi security. Iraq cannot suckle at the teat of the United States forever. </p>
<p>The main problem in Iraq is the lack of political will on the part of al-Maliki to do anything with his “coalition” government. Iraq is in dire need of a unifier, yet Maliki isn’t up to the job. While we’ve made advances in the security realm in Iraq (we suffered a setback in Anbar province, due to the assassination of a prominent pro-U.S. Sunni sheik), we’ve made little progress in the political arena… and if Iraq cannot progress further and faster with its infant government, we risk of having our stay there be all for naught.</p>
<p>and please, THE ENEMY, what the heck does that MEAN, it is so simplistic and orwellian and childlike it is embarrassing</p>
<p>who is the enemy by the way, and if we are fighting them in Iraq, how did they get there on our watch</p>
<p>I guess the point I was trying to make about Vietnam was that we finally realized that staying wasn’t going to help, however horrendous leaving would be–and it was. We should have thought about that BEFORE invading Iraq.</p>
<p>CGM, I’ve never been a supporter of the war (I am, however, in favor of victory now), but there were terrorists in Iraq before the war. That’s unquestionable. See the 9/11 Commission report.</p>
<p>“Yes, and a terrific thing happened to our credibility by supporting Musharraf in his totalitarian regime in Pakistan. After all, he’s the epitome of the democratic system in a majority-Muslim country, is he not? You know, forget about the whole Chief Justice scandal, the fact that he just barred a former Prime Minister from permanently re-entering the country due to his ability to challenge Musharraf politically, etc. He’s a “good guy,” and doing “heckuva job.””</p>
<p>One simple fact in international relations is that you can’t insist that your allies be saints or else you will have no allies. In WWII we allied with Stalin and would not have won the war without his help. Likewise, were it not for Mushariff we would not have successfully invaded Afghanistan and all of the captured/killed AQ leaders would still be doing their dirty work. Would you rather that we have left him as an ally of the Taliban? Turning Mushariff to our side was one of the major diplomatic achievements of the Bush administration.</p>
<p>"I guess the point I was trying to make about Vietnam was that we finally realized that staying wasn’t going to help, however horrendous leaving would be–and it was. "</p>
<p>Actually, there was a period of stability and relative security in S Vietnam after our departure. This was because the North feared our re-entry into the war. However, once the Democratic Congress voted to cut all funds for the South, the North new that they could attack with impunity - and they did.</p>
<p>Mushariff is much better than the alternative.</p>
<p>ff:</p>
<p>It is incorrect to say that “Democrats” have not addressed what will happen in Iraq after we leave. Hillary Clinton certainly has. In fact, much of her most recent speech on Iraq dealt with exactly that issue with proposals for two major initiatives that the Bush administration is not pursuing: refugee relief efforts and full-scale diplomatic efforts in the region.</p>
<p>But, I doubt you are really interested in what the Democrats have to say.</p>
<p>I find your argument regarding the Taliban and al-Qaeda dubious at best. But before addressing that, let me address your first point re: Musharraf. It’s, quite frankly, a straw man argument. I was merely reflecting on your statement about U.S. credibility re: Musharraf’s decision in joining the GWOT. Quite frankly, Musharraf was more intrigued by U.S. offers of aid and support (to keep his current administration in power… you can see it even now in the D/S press briefings where Musharraf is always cautiously defended as an ally of the United States…) than reminiscing about U.S. involvement in historical events.</p>
<p>Now, re: AQ and the Taliban. Your argument is a bit dubious, much like the President’s “if we don’t fight them there, we’ll fight them here” argument. We have eliminated major traces of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. But they are resurging elsewhere. al-Qaeda, being a horizontally formed organization, is forming lateral alliances with organizations such as Jemaah Islamiyyah, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (two SE Asian examples). It’s forming quite a formidable presence in North Africa. Prior to the Hamas occupation of Gaza and the Palestinian crisis, it was reported to the NYT that Hamas officials feared a presence of AQ that would ruin the fragile stability that Hamas sought to erect. Eliminating AQ in Afghanistan is NOT a cureall for our world’s terrorist problems; far from it, in fact.</p>
<p>Turning Musharraf pro-U.S. was not a major diplomatic achievement of the Bush administration… if it was, then I fear for the future of our foreign policy. Things like rushing foreign aid to tsunami survivors in 2004, or making serious headway with a new carrot/stick approach in North Korea… I think that’s a major diplomatic achievement.</p>
<p>And re: the Taliban. Well, we haven’t quite eliminated them yet, have we. The South Korea incident made us all too aware of the fact that the Taliban is STILL there. UBL has yet to be found (I doubt Mullah Omar has as well). The fact that South Korea was willing to recognize the Taliban as a semi-legitimate entity dealt a blow to U.S. credibility re: GWOT.</p>
<p>Now:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You may want to tell President Bush that. After all, one of the core concepts of the MDC/MDG is that LDCs attain a modicum of governmental stability. Certainly not “sainthood”, but conditions of democratic freedom, proper governance, etc. are required benchmarks of development. But hey, who cares if we hypocritically hold one country to a higher standard than another, despite the whole concept of equal treatment re: foreign aid/development assistance. And since the MDC was formed to promote alliances with countries that are at risk for being failed states (and thus, at risk for facilitating terrorism through lack of a governmental infrastructure), your “basic fact of IR” doesn’t hold true… at least for this President. In the eyes of this President, at least for some countries, you need to be a saint in order to be an ally of the United States.</p>
<p>The refuge thing is a bit like fighting terrorism by funding first responders. It doesn’t prevent the carnage but just deals with the aftermath.</p>
<p>The “diplomatic” thing is an easy thing to claim but is nothing but apple pie and motherhood. It is reminiscent of John Kerry’s bold assertion that he “would have talked to our allies” to get them to participate in Iraq. Easy to say, but doesn’t really mean a thing.</p>
<p>“Eliminating AQ in Afghanistan is NOT a cureall for our world’s terrorist problems; far from it, in fact.” </p>
<p>I never made that claim. However, speaking of strawman arguments. The fact that al Qaeda (or the Taliban) still exists does not diminish the fact that huge inroads have been made in bringing the core of the original leaders into custody or into the lair of the 70 virgins. This would not have occured without Mushariff. And, yes, turning him away from the Taliban to our side was huge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait, what? I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. And the only way we can ever wage war is go in headstrong, without evidence (after all, you know, those WMDs were in plentiful supply in Iraq), and without the cooperation of the International Community. Diplomacy is not all feel-good as you suggest. Our President has put diplomatic negotiation on the backburner, instead using the diplomatic arm of the United States to pursue our own agenda. Granted, that’s what diplomacy has been all about, but the lack of willingness to compromise on certain things (more arrogant and headstrong than previous administrations) has cost us big. We have damaged our relationship with France, Germany, even the United Kingdom (as they are slowly distancing themselves from this administration… due to the political catastrophe in Britain caused by following GWB’s lead). But of course, since diplomacy is mere feel-good imagery like you suggest, we shouldn’t worry about these consequences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And how effective is the capture of those “core leaders” (btw: al-Zawahiri and UBL… still at large) when the organization is always undergoing change in leadership due to the collective structure of al-Qaeda?</p>
<p>"We have damaged our relationship with France, Germany, even the United Kingdom (as they are slowly distancing themselves from this administration… due to the political catastrophe in Britain caused by following GWB’s lead). "</p>
<p>Do you not follow the elections in these countries? Since the war, pro-US leaders were elected in all three countries. So much for our damaged relations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s see. Any of these countries offer to put troops (or in the case of Britain, additional troops) on the ground? Do you think Chancellor Merkel was pleased with the fact that the President has relegated the issue of climate control (something she is championing) to a tertiary level? Do you think in the 1 1/2 or so years left in the Bush Administration, we can create a warm, fuzzy alliance with the Sarkozy Administration, with lasting effects to repair the damage done to US foreign integrity during the Chirac Administration? Or the fact that the chief Army officer in the UK has called for a withdrawal from Iraq, distancing himself from the U.S. surge? Or the fact that two of the UK’s (Lord Malloch and the Development Secretary) government officials have called for a distancing from U.S. foreign policy?</p>
<p>Actually, the Germans have added troops in Afghanistan. As far as the French, I’d say the main culprit in the the relationship was the French. Talk to Colin Powell about how he got double crossed at the UN - he was livid. Also, post-war intelligence showed that the reason Saddam felt so confident in snubbing the UN was that he had a special deal with Russia and France. Take away the the treachery of the French and the whole war may have been avoided. So, if you want to sit back and think that everything is Bush’s fault, I suggest you take a little broader view.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suspect that Colin Powell is the last person on earth who wants to see conversations that include “double-crossing” and “the UN”.</p>
<p>If you recall, he gave a rather prominent speech to the General Assembly that turned out to be a complete pack of lies.</p>