<p>Whether people want to continue the fantasy that the war was precipitated by (nonexistant) WMD, the fact remains that the civil war currently underway in Iraq is causing more death and destruction than Saddam did in his worst days of gassing people. If you read anything (not on the DU; find your own sources) by imbedded reporters, “stuck” in their lap of luxury with swimming pools, running tracks, air conditioning and wide screen TVs (behind the green line of course) and the description of the sectarian bloodshed going on beyond this safety net, it is appalling. There is no rule of law at all…none…and the various factions are busy killing or kidnapping each other, cutting off each other’s heads, etc. It is brutal, violent and the American soldiers have NO control over the situation. NONE.</p>
<p>So, whether or not one agrees about the premise for the war, or not, the fact is that the mess at the moment is astounding, the insfrastructure ruined (there is still not sufficient water or electricity, still not back to pre-invasion levels despite the billions of dollars wasted in rebuilding costs…OUR taxpayer dollars wasted.) and how anyone can still support this administrations’ adventures in nation building is seriously beyond me.</p>
<p>Allmusic posted: “Whether people want to continue the fantasy that the war was precipitated by (nonexistant) WMD”</p>
<p>I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with anything else in your post, but even you don’t know the full story about the WMD. The rest of the post was thoughtful and serious, though.</p>
I guess if I had to choose between a candidate who does what he thinks is best for the country and then has the courage of his convictions and doesn’t hoist the white flag at the first sign of trouble versus a candidate (take your pick from my previous post of Dem pre-war bravado rhetoric) who says what he deems to be the most politically expedient at the time, I’d take the one who doesn’t lead with his finger up in the air trying to reflect changing winds of the latest opinion poll. Others may have a different standard for their elected leaders.</p>
<p>Courage comes in many forms. One of them involves acknoweldging that one’s policies, however well intentioned, are not working. I’m interested to know when those who still support our involvement in Iraq will be comfortable saying that our continued action there is not, in fact, serving our interests. Assume that the conditions there continue to decline, that there is no improvement in the security situation and sectarian violence does not relent. At what point should we consider a change in policy? FF, I 'll let you propose what you consider a reasonable date to change course.</p>
<p>saddam did have WMD’s. He used them in the 80’s they found them in early 90’s and again in 98 but then the inspectors were kicked out so in between 1998 and 2003 saddam either peacefully destroyed his weapons or hid them pretty damn well</p>
I don’t speak in terms of “dates”; I would pull out:
if the democratically elected leaders of Iraq asked us to leave.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>if I saw an unwillingness on the part of the Iraqi military to shed blood to salvage their own country. </p></li>
<li><p>if our people on the ground evaluated the situation and determined more Iraqis would be killed if we stayed than if we left (I don’t want to repeat the inhuman mistake of Vietnam where we said “see ya” only to leave the country at the hands of the butchers who proceeded to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent people.) I can never quite figure out the logic of someone who, on one side of their mouth they decry the loss of innocent Iraqi lives because of the war (or the pre-war sanctions), but on the other side of their mouth they say the life of an American is not worth it to keep the Iraqis from devolving into civil war. Either you value Iraqi lives or you don’t.</p>
<ul>
<li>if, as a last possibility, our people on the ground and political leaders evaluated the situation and determined that there was absolutley no way that our presence could stop or mitigate the bloodflow and that our soldiers were being needlessly sacrificed.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
<p>I don’t see any of these conditions being met today.</p>
<p>FF, the Iraqi are killing each other at 60-100 a day! It isn’t a situation that MAY devolve into a civil war. It IS a civil war, according to the Iraqi themselves. I suspect that American troops will be there a good long time (esp with those permanent bases we are building), but at the moment, I don’t think the American presence is doing a thing to quell sectarian violence.</p>
<p>The situation is significantly more precarious, dangerous, and volatile for the entire region, and the world, than it was prior to the invasion in 2003.</p>
<p>AM - everyone seems to have their own definition of various terms. Some even refer to what Abu Ghraib as “torture”. So, naturally some will chose to define what is happening in Iraq as a civil war. However, what one calls it is irrelevant to my views as expressed above. If we think that the killing will stop once we leave, we should leave. However, note that no serious Iraqi leader is pushing for that. I think they know a bit more about their country than those who are CNN-experts.</p>
<p>Why not call a spade a spade? At what point will you consider the death toll in Iraq a civil war? 200 sectarian deaths a day? 300?</p>
<p>Whether or not the US stays or goes will have little effect on what is happening and what will unfold, because the US military cannot contain this violence, death and destruction. They can try to control small pockets of Baghdad, but the truth is, even the military knows they are no match for murdering each other with this degree of ferocity.</p>
<p>Same as what the Israelis are now encountering. This is no traditional enemy, as they are just as intent on killing each other as killing Americans.</p>
<p>Where that leaves us in this mutli-billion dollar debacle, with so many American service people is harm’s way…I don’t know. But we cannot continue with more of the same for decades on end, as some promise.</p>
<p>I respect the thoughtfulness of your position, but, as I see it, your criteria depend too heavily on the judgment of “political leaders” and “our people on the ground.” Just a few days ago I heard a general make the case that Iraq has not descended into civil war on the grounds that all but four of the provinces experience few violent incidents. This struck me as a silly and specious argument–as if we’re not aware that a fourth of all Iraqis live in Baghdad alone–the response of someone defending a position, not providing an objective assessment of the situation in order to edify a deserving public. True, I don’t have access to all the information, but I just can’t defer as easily as you can to the powers that be.</p>
<p>Spoonyj asked: “At what point should we consider a change in policy? FF, I 'll let you propose what you consider a reasonable date to change course.”</p>
<p>First of all, I’d like to thank you for presenting your question in such a courteous manner.</p>
<p>My thoughts on this (I do think about it a lot and don’t expect anyone to agree) are that there are some optimistic signs, such as this week’s turning over of more territory to Iraqi forces. I also saw the elections as positive. However, I think we need to seriously re-assess where we are and what the future holds no later than the end of the year. Not to saw we should withdraw immediately, but I do think that a supporting force should look different that an invading force. I supported the war in Iraq and still do, but I categorically do not believe that the administration has handled the post-war period appropriately. Although I have a secret fear at 3:00 am that the REAL reason for the Iraq war was to have troops settled on the Iranian border. That’s my own personal conspiracy theory and you can’t have it!!</p>
<p>Allmusic posted: “Why not call a spade a spade? At what point will you consider the death toll in Iraq a civil war? 200 sectarian deaths a day? 300?”</p>
<p>I think it is a lot more complicated than that. I think the location of the fighting, the possibility of working with local leaders, and the possibility of bringing it under control in a reasonable time really do matter. The administration really screwed up in leaving Ole Mookie alive. Which is to me a failure of courage and imagination.</p>
<p>I also think that we need to have a clear(er) picture of what a functioning Iraq should look like. I haven’t thought this part through, but my next topic of personal research is “why not partition?” Since Iraq in its current incarnation is a product of British interference, perhaps individual states might be a better solution. I’m not sure of the answer to that, but I’m going to do as much research as possible to come up with an opinion.</p>
But who would you listen too if not the combined views of the military, the Iraqi leadership and Ambassador Khalilzad (who is spoken of glowingly by both the left and the right). These individuals, with varying viewpoints and local knowledge are far better qualified to make such evaluations than someone watching TV in their rocking chair. They are also far better than the cast of Dems who have shown, with their varying opinions on Iraq without the courage to stand by their statements or at least to admit that they were wrong without trying to pass the buck, that they are nothing but a bunch of political opportunists. I’d take the viewpoint of leaders who were elected by the Iraqi people and who have to live with the results in Iraq over such political low-life anyday.</p>
<p>Coureur posted: "I’d be much more willing to put my faith in the current powers that be if:</p>
<p>a) They weren’t the ones who got us in this mess in the first place by making us aggressors and needlessly invading Iraq, and…</p>
<p>b) They had some idea about how to get us out of this mess beyond their currently failing plan of More of the Same"</p>
<p>Valid points, both. </p>
<p>How do you feel about the media glitches (for lack of a better word) with regard to the current situation in Lebanon? Does the fact that several important media outlets have admitted to doctoring or slanting information make you wonder what else is doctored/slanted and if, in fact, we aren’t getting the whole, factual story out of Iraq either?</p>
<p>^^Oh, by no means do I regard the news media as paragons of accuracy and virtue either – not in Lebanon and not in Iraq. But I don’t think they’ve cut their coverage of Iraq out of whole cloth. There really are car bombs going off. I do think that the bodies really are piling up in the Iraqi morgues. The media isn’t faking that. </p>
<p>But we don’t have to rely on news reporters. The US military generals’ own depressing assessments are enough to convince me that we’re stuck in a quagmire with no clear plan or path to success.</p>
<p>“The US military generals’ own depressing assessments are enough to convince me that we’re stuck in a quagmire with no clear plan or path to success.”</p>
<p>It sounds to me like you are willing to accept the military leaders opinions when it corresponds with your world view but disregard it if it contradicts your view.</p>