<p>OK, FF, I misread “crowd” as “coward”. My apologies.</p>
<p>However, your use of “cut and run” in response to Hindoo’s post is tantamount to an accusation of cowardice. It wasn’t right when the neocons did it to Tammy Duckworth, and it isn’t right now.</p>
<p>AM, yes I certainly do grimace and mourn the lives of all who die or are injured in Iraq - regardless of their ethnicity or religion. Yet, those like you conveniently ignore the projections of how incredily worse things will get if we leave prematurely. Of course you probably will never have to “mourn” them, because just like in Vietnam, the media will no longer be interested in following a regional civil war on the other side of the world and you can go happily to the mall thinking that you did your good deed. </p>
<p>Of course you not only ignore the projections of what will happen to the Iraqis, you also ignore the projections about what will happen to out long-term war against Islamist terrorists.</p>
<p>“Projections”? Like the “projection” of our frst clue to Iraq’s WMD’s being a mushroom shaped cloud? Here’s the problem, FF - your guys “projected” that we’d be greeted as liberators in Iraq, and be able to withdraw the bulk of our troops in a year or so. So far, I score things “reality” 1 - “projections” - 0. One thing we can confidently project, however, is thousands more Americans dead and wounded under the guidance of your “projectors.”</p>
<p>What and where are these authoritative “projections” that you treat like objective truth? I’ve heard lots of projections from lots of different sources, some well-informed and some not, some politically biased in one direction or another and some not.</p>
<p>Whichever ones you’re referring to, do they claim that Iraq will disintegrate if we leave now, but NOT if we leave in two years? Because that’s the claim I find most ridiculous.</p>
<p>From the latest NIE:
</p>
<p>And, if you don’t like the view of the NIE, I suggest you listen to the interview of the NY Times reporter, John Burns, which was linked to in an earlier post. He has been a neutral reporter in country for the entire war and essentially concurs that it would be a disaster if we withdraw.</p>
<p>It is interesting to me to see the reaction from others regarding the war in Iraq. Most of the people responding seem to feel that the US has no business trying to bring stability to a region that historically has been unstable and contains terrorist factions that would like to destroy the US. The predominate opinion seems to be that if we leave Iraq it will be better for us since at least US soldiers will not be getting killed. Further, most seem to think that the problems in this region are of our making. If only we had left things as they were we (the US) would be much better off. The war has ousted a dictator that: (1) terrorized Iraq’s populace, (2) was an enemy to the US (i.e., wanted us destroyed), and (3) possessed enough wealth to cause us great harm. It is not clear why removing Sadaam from power and stabilizing the government is viewed as a bad thing. By stabilize, I mean having a government in place that does not have our destruction as a goal.</p>
<p>Most of the people who responded to my original post also seem to feel that the terrorists (I can’t call them insurgents since their primary tactic is to terrorize the civilian populace) are justified in their actions because the US is in their country. I think it is pretty clear that the terrorists are fighting to control Iraq and do as much harm as possible to the US. They would be doing this whether or not we were in the country trying to stabilize it. Also, most seem to feel our motives for being in Iraq are misrepresented by our government. If at all possible, destroying us outright would please the terrorists as they have stated over and over with no equivocation. I think the current US administration has been quite clear about this throughout the war. The fact that Iraq has huge oil wealth is clearly at the root of most of the ongoing violence. I don’t think that anyone in this thread is naive enough to believe that the terrorists are fighting to control Iraq so that they can create a peaceful, happy, and fulfilling life for the populace. They want the oil wealth and it should be clear to all that the wealth will not be used for the betterment of the people in Iraq. The terrorists have ambitions that are global and the US is in their way. </p>
<p>Finally, the defeatist message by most people on this thread is that the US has lost the war in Iraq. However, most fail to acknowledge that while the war is currently being fought in Iraq, it won’t end if we leave. The terrroists are not stating terms of surrender that suggest that if we leave Iraq they will no longer be at war with the US. Quite the contrary, they have indicated that the fight will continue until we are destroyed. If we withdraw from Iraq and let them take control and gain control of Iraq’s wealth, it is clear that they intend to use that wealth to strengthen their cause and hasten our demise. The US has a well defined interest (our well being) in what happens in Iraq. We did not create this problem. Ignoring it will not make it go away. I hope the surge works.</p>
<p>There isn’t any war in Iraq. That ended with “Mission Accomplished”. There is a hostile, aggressive occupation.</p>
<p>The U.S. WON the war in Iraq. The Republican Congress even allocated $20 million for the victory celebrations.</p>
<p>“This post is without a doubt going to be nominated for chutzpah post of the year award. How the cut and run crowd can support pulling out now and at the same time bewail the deaths of innocent Iraqi’s is sinister irony at its best.”
FF–We have a fundamental disagreement here. I don’t see the chutzpah in my #69 post, although I’m proud to stand out in a crowd. We have, in fact, created a god-forsaken nightmare over there, and we’re only making it worse. You can argue with that all you want, but it’s true. Cretinous, simple-minded Bushism’s like “cut and run” do not describe the good people who oppose this insane war, and who opposed it from the very beginning.</p>
<p>Hindoo, I do not take issue with your position against starting the war. I disagree, but I have always maintained that there were legitimate reasons to be against the war.</p>
<p>However, now that we are there and things are falling off the shelves at the Pottery Barn, to denigarate those who want to prevent further carnage by seeing things through as unfeeling, as you did, while ignoring the liklihood of increased carnage by leaving now smacks of incredible irony and condecension.</p>
<p>I think that the greatest condescension is ignoring the advice of the military strategists who have been right all along about the war, in favor of the pipe dreams of those who have been wrong all along. </p>
<p>When a man like Barry McCaffery says something won’t work–will make things worse–we should be heeding that, instead of ignoring him in favor of the think tankers who said we’d be down to 5000 troops by now.</p>
<p>Sjmom, here’s the problem. What you don’t get it that it’s not always all about us. There are lots of tyrants who don’t like the US. Heck, there ae lots of democratically elected officials who don’t like us either. And yes, there are more now than there were on 9/11 because of the arrogance and incompetence of the Bush Administration. Pretending that the people killing each other in Iraq now are primarily motivated by a desire to harm America is exactly the kind of self-centered world view that got us into this mess. Your naive categorization of all of the various factions fighting and killing in that country as “the terrorists” leads to the kind of simplistic analysis which caused administration officials to think we’d be greeted as liberators. This is not a cartoon. There’s not just two groups of people in the world, the white hatted freedom lovers and the black hatted “terrorists.” The world in general, and Iraq in particular, are orders of magnitude more complex than anything you’ve hinted at in your post. “We did not create this problem”? Not entirely, certainly. But we sure did a great job of making sure that a manageable problem has become an insoluble one. </p>
<p>FF: Iraq is going to be a hell hole for a long time whether we stay another couple of years or not. It remains to be seen whether we’ll do our national interests more harm than good by a temporary continuation of Bush’s folly, but at this point it seems probable - and that’s not even counting the loss of American lives and limbs.</p>
<p>
Ummm … when did you start keeping score on being “right”? My recollection was that McCaffery was in favor of the war.</p>
<p>“However, now that we are there and things are falling off the shelves at the Pottery Barn”</p>
<p>If your kid breaks things at the Pottery Barn, you take him outside immediately, lecture him, and maybe tell him he has to go to bed without supper. You make him pay for the damage out of his allowance, even if it takes years. You tell him you will punish him more severely if he ever does it again. You provide reparations to the owner, and you pay for someone else to clean it up.</p>
<p>You don’t send your kid back in with a jar of Elmer’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one needs to “keep score.” It’s glaringly obvious that the neocon think tankers were wrong. We aren’t down to 5000 troops, there were no ties to Al Queda, and no WMD, the war has cost more than the $100 billion they said was way too high, it hasn’t been paid for by Iraq’s oil, elections haven’t made Iraq stable…the list goes on and on. And yet they are still making policy.</p>
<p>The reason that I used Barry McCaffrey as an example is precisely because he was an early supporter of the war (though one who understood the practical realities of it, not the neocon pipe dreams of a short “cakewalk” occupation)*. If a man like that says that the surge isn’t in our or Iraq’s best interests, shouldn’t we listen?</p>
<p>*This should help you understand McCaffrey’s history a little better. The neocons hated him, and it turns out he was right and they were wrong:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3087296/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3087296/</a></p>
<p>NEW YORK, Sept. 25, 2003 </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>FF, you should read the whole article. It’s amazing looking back to 2003 how prophetic McCaffrey was, and how callously he was dismissed.</p>
<p>“It is interesting to me to see the reaction from others regarding the war in Iraq. Most of the people responding seem to feel that the US has no business trying to bring stability to a region that historically has been unstable and contains terrorist factions that would like to destroy the US.”
Sjmom–I can’t speak for others, but my personal feeling is we shouldn’t have been in Iraq to begin with. We had traced the 9/11 terrorist source primarily to Afghanistan, where the Taliban had been so helpful to bin Laden. I think we were absolutely obligated to do something about that. … Where I parted ways with our president was Iraq. Yes, Iraq has undoubtedly harbored terrorists over the years–but so has Saudi Arabia and other so-called “friendly” Arab countries. We can’t attack them all. (Or can we?)</p>
<p>“Most of the people who responded to my original post also seem to feel that the terrorists (I can’t call them insurgents since their primary tactic is to terrorize the civilian populace) are justified in their actions because the US is in their country.”
No, we don’t think they are justified in their actions. They’re insane, which is one reason we should never have opened that Pandora’s box. And the sad thing is, we’re probably creating more of them with each passing day.</p>
<p>“Finally, the defeatist message by most people on this thread is that the US has lost the war in Iraq.”
It was never ours to win. And what is the definition of “victory,” anyway?</p>
<p>ff–I’m afraid you’re right. We’re probably damned if we do and damned if we don’t at this point. Yes, now that we’ve helped create this bloody chaos in Iraq, we’re stuck in a horrible situation. Anything we do will be less than ideal.</p>
<p>sjmom–I just finished reading your explanation (in post #86) of why you feel the way you do. I disagree, but appreciate your civility and passion.</p>
<p>Three things the invasion of Iraq has indisputably accomplished:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Transfer huge amounts of wealth to the crony contractors, even though the American people had to take on hundreds of billions in extra debt to do it.</p></li>
<li><p>Greatly expand the power of the central government at the expense of individuals’ privacy.</p></li>
<li><p>Destabilize a country that was no immediate threat to us.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Would the United States have accepted #1 and #2 without #3? Not likely.</p>
<p>Tony Snow:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe for him, it didn’t.</p>
<p>NOTHING went wrong.</p>
<p><a href=“HAL Interactive Stock Chart | Halliburton Company Stock - Yahoo Finance”>HAL Interactive Stock Chart | Halliburton Company Stock - Yahoo Finance;
<p>Looking at the long litany of misrepresentation, deception, selective intelligence, inadequate planning not based on any reality, incompetent execution, the equation of dissent with treason, the pattern of vindictive retaliation against those who contributed any roadblocks in the public debate, the impotent bluster inherent in “Bring 'em on” and “Mission Accomplished,” the degree to which the US actions have motivated converts to Islamist terrorism faster than we’re killing them, the degree to which we have destabilized the Middle East at the cost of a great expenditure of blood and money, all done during a charade of keeping the war off the budget books to keep the financial costs from fully sinking in, while devoting insufficient resources to greater dangers such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, leads me not to trust the drunks at the wheel to have the solution to the mess that they have created and sustained. </p>
<p>And let’s dispense with the fantasy that those going to Iraq are doing so in the service of the United States. Iraq wasn’t a valid target for a response to 9/11, unlike Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. To the extent that it’s a theater for the so-called war on terror today, it’s a theater created by the United States. Our troops are pawns in the ambitions of the so-called president’s ambitions to wave his weenie around the Middle East in an attempt to one-up his father. If someone must go, let it be those who believe in it or their children. Start with the Bush twins, add all the college Republicans who–like Dick Cheney during Vietnam now have other priorities–and let’s not miss the children of the CC posters who are so adamant that this is the right thing…if they really believe so, they have no business spending time on CC, they should yank their kids out of college and sign 'em up.</p>
<p>Not to worry, the rest of us and our children are going to be paying the price of this debacle for decades.</p>
<p>
For the zillionth time, PARENTS CANNOT SIGN THEIR ADULT CHILDREN UP FOR ANYTHING!!!</p>
<p>This is the most stupid point that continues to be made on CC. So only teachers can criticize the educational system in this country? Only politicians can comment on our system of government? The concept that only those who have children or a spouse in the military can support this war is completely without any merit, and is disingenuous. How about we say that only those who actually have family members in the war can call for withdrawal or demand that the troops be brought home? That’s the same logic you people follow. For the record, members of my family DO work in the interest of National Defense, and I guarantee that we are more involved in the issues than many of you. So, why don’t you do yourself a favor, and try to come up with a more intelligent point to make about Iraq.</p>