<p>You presume there will be something of a unified coherent effective national Iraqi force to turn things over to. Based on the situation on the ground–and I give Driver a B+ for her description–two words are applicable: ain’t happenin’. Followed by: no way we can do anything to make it happen.</p>
<p>Do a Google search and see if you can see find the 14-point presentation that Lt. Gen. Petraeus made to the Army War College a few months back. Many good points, but two in particular stick out and come up over and over again:</p>
<p>There is half-life where an army of liberation becomes an army of occupation. Roger that. A couple of years ago, the political situation was still plastic enough that we could have some effect. Our ability to influence the Iraqi political landscape–which is the major thing that will determine results from here on out–has been diminishing at an exponential rate. About the only reasons that any Iraqis want us there at all is to be used as proxies and cat’s paws against other factions. There is no national “center” to build or hold. And none of the elements look like very good bets for us in the long run…even the Shiite so-called moderates. The situation in Lebanon is not helping as Iraqis of virtually all persuasions loathe us for our support of Israel. [N.B. This is not an argument for not supporting Israel, more of a commentary on the effects of our policies on the jigsaw puzzle.]</p>
<p>The other really really good point Petraeus made was about ensuring that any action nets more good than harm. Time after time, we are not just shooting ourselves in the foot but using a machinegun to do so. The cumulative effect of Abu Gharib (remember, by the Army’s own admission, 90 percent of the inhabitants were not guilty of anything), the murders, the rapes, all the non- or lightly-reported oopsies of carloads of families being killed a checkpoints or alongside convoys has served to convince the average Iraqi that we don’t care about them at all and look upon them as pawns for our own purposes. Can’t say that I blame them. </p>
<p>I have a copy of Petraeus’ full presentation but can’t lay my hands on it at the moment. Well worth reading. Of course, he’s probably just a defeatist cut-and-runner.</p>
<p>Not addressed to anyone in particular, but going back to the earlier topic of not knowing what to believe in the news anymore, this is worth a look. A well done compilation/discussion of faked photos. Not saying it’s absolutely conclusive, and, as the writer notes, there are real, true examples of innocents killed in war on both sides. But still. I don’t know how anyone can be sure they know what’s going on over there, and I think the press is failing us badly.</p>
<p>I completely agree. Reading an NYTimes article the other day on the way into work I was struck at the vehemence of many of the Iraqi’s interviewed regarding what they see as American power politics at work in the Middle East (i.e. The U.S. pursues action that only benefit itself or Israel, no real ‘neutrality’ in international affairs). Given the need now more then ever to be percieved as neutral within the international realm, the Hezbollah-Israel conflict could not have come at a worse time.</p>
<p>In the 1980s, Hussein used nerve gas against his own people, killing thousands of innocent people. I find it so naive that a person actually think that Iraq did not have WMDs. How hard would it have been for Saddam to stockpile his weapons in a bunker in the middle of the desert. The weapons inspectors searched the key areas of Iraq, but certainly never the rural areas or mountain crevaces. If he used the WMDs once, he obviously still possessed them in 2003. Hussein needed to be reprimanded for the savage actions against his own people in the 70s and 80s.</p>
<pre><code> I personally wouldn’t want Hussein to be my neighbor. He has a track record of savage killing, terror funding, and cruel totalitarian rule. I reckon that the invasion of Iraq had some value. Ha, any value at all will be spat upon by the liberal party.
</code></pre>
<p>And the award for coming out of left field goes to…</p>
<p>What exactly are you talking about? It’s been completely proven that Saddam DIDN’T have chemical weapons. Completely. The found artillary shells scattered accross the country that were left over from the 1980’s war with Iran. These shells had been so degraded by time they were completely inert and useless. The Iraqi military probably forgot they had them. </p>
<p>“You reckon that the invasion of Iraq had some value?” Oh wow. Please halt you mindblowing assault upon anti-war logic.</p>
<p>The Iraq war most definitely had some value: it removed a corrupt, sadistic dictator from power. However, what any true student of the conflict will be quick to point out is the manifest failure of the Bush administration to adequately prepare for and execute a workable campaign to prevent the situation Iraq currently finds itself in.</p>
<p>It’s funny how some posters here think you can hide weapons just by hiding them out in the desert. </p>
<p>Believe it or not, you don’t just dig a hole in the ground and throw them in. Bulid a bunker? Yea, imagine how that would stand out in the stark desert. </p>
<p>It is one thing to hide things from external recon, quite another to hide something that can’t be found after 3 years of occupation. Sure, it is possible, just like the tooth fairy is possible. But probable? No way. All it takes is one hungy local guy that, for the price of a few meals, tells you about the strange construction trucks driving through the area a while back. (yea, neighbors are curious, and the desert is NOT empty. Just talk to someone who’s been there).</p>
<p>So Justinian, YOU are the one who is naive if you really think it is so easy to hide weapons. Weapons are not like construction materials. They are dangerous, and need proper storage if they are to be kept good, and not stolen by someone else.</p>
<p>No one thinks their there now. Yet some believe the possibility that Saddam shuttled them out in the many months before the invasion when he knew he was being targeted.</p>
<p>There are “some” who believe that men have never set foot on the moon, that the CIA created AIDS to deliberately target gays and minorities, that 9/11 was actually faked by the US government, etc. What’s your point?</p>
<p>Some people also believe Elvis is still alive. There is no credible evidence for either belief. Shave with Occam’s Razor.</p>
<p>Nobody is saying that Saddam Hussein was a Nice Guy or a Good Thing. However, a stable Iraq under Saddam is beginning to look good compared to what we’ve created, deaths and all.</p>
<p>Our Doofus-in-Chief today pronounced that we’re in a war against Islamic Fascists. Well, yeah…one of the few times he’s spoken the truth. Except that Saddam was virulently secular and on <em>that</em> score Saddam wasn’t a problem…which is why the U.S. cozied up to Saddam, complete with meetings with Cheney & Rumsfeld, during the Iran-Iraq war.</p>
<p>Today’s attempted terror incident in Great Britain involves Pakistanis and Kashmiris operating out of London. I’d be willing to entertain propositions as to how having 140,000 American troops in Iraq is helping defend against threats like that, other than “nothing” or “sure motivates the fanatics more.”</p>
<p>Bush is kinda like an ADD toddler who just acts out. Obsessed with Iraq to do something Daddy didn’t. Sounds Freudian to me.</p>
<p>Coalition forces did turn up a couple dozen fighters buried in the sands of Iraq. You can google and find it yourself, if you doubt it. You may also recall that during the first Gulf War, Iraq defended its air force by flying more than 100 jets over the border into Iran. Iran kept the jets, as war reparations. The reports of Iraqi tractor trailer convoys taking unknown cargo into Syria are hardly far-fetched. The WMD story isn’t over yet.</p>
<p>It’s without question…beyond reasoned doubt…an apodictic truth that any argument that needs to bathe its premise with, “Nobody is saying that Saddam Hussein was a Nice Guy or a Good thing” could possibly lead to any good. It is always, all down hill from there. </p>
<p>Same goes for soft peddling the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Lex Luther or William Hung. For this, even ADD is a poor excuse deserving of nothing more than a good parental mouth wash…and not the sweetened kind either. The yellow industrial strength stuff!</p>
<p>Here’s the problem: Saddam had completely dismantled his WMD project before the war. He just refused to let investigators in to verify it. It has since been verifyed.</p>
<p>Second, I listened to the chief american investigator who had been in Iraq prior to Hans Blix speak live. Not only did he completely destroy the premise of the Bush Administrations argument, but presented credible arguments and informaiton as to why the opposite was true (that Saddam had most likely destroyed or otherwise dismantled his WMD capability).</p>
<p>Third, do you honestly think Syria would be willing to harbor Saddam’s WMD’s with 140,000 U.S. troops right next door? It would be the height of stupidity, especially since Saddam was deposed from power.</p>
With Israeli jets literally buzzing the presidential palace at will, I’m sure that many Syrians are now pondering the heights of stupidity that their government has been exploring for all these years.</p>
<p>My point is, if Saddam didn’t have WMD when Bush was making his accusations, where did the stuff he had in 1998 go? I don’t think he peacefully destroyed it, or he would have publicized it to get the world off his back. So i think he did the smart thing and shuttled it to syria or who knows where. Probably Syria, as they are also ruled by the ba’ath party</p>
<p>WMDs are a red herring. Since when do you need a reason to topple a bloodthirsty dictator?</p>
<p>And don’t tell me, “Well, there are a LOT of bloodthirsty dictators in the world.” Just because you can’t eat EVERY pizza in the world, it doesn’t mean you can’t eat SOME of them.</p>
<p>Umm. What weapons he still had in 1998 are you refering to?</p>
<p>TourGuide: Ruthless, yes. Bloodthirsty? Maybe. Saddam was a creative genius for hanging on to power as long as he did. Yes, he violently represses his own people, but he was still in office at the end of the day.</p>
<p>This of course is starting a whole other debate regarding the legitimacy of the US interfering in the affairs of other sovereign nations (one of the big reason China is so against any sort of interference in Sudan).</p>
<p>Yes, though i really hope i’m wrong. Syria is rulled by the Ba’ath party, which is Saddam’s party. And Syrian knew Saddam was going to lose badly, and they’d have a bunch of free WMD. Though I do hope i’m wrong, because Syria, if they do have WMD from Iraq, could give it to hezbolla.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The stuff the UN inspector’s found before Iraq kicked them out. Not alot of people know about it, because it happened during the whole Monica Lewinski thing, and it recieved almost no press coverage because of it.</p>
<p>So UNSCOM (the UN inspectors) which claimed that 90-95% of Saddam’s WMD stock had been destroyed by 1998 found weapons? Slightly confused.</p>
<p>Sidenote: The missing 5-10% talked about above isn’t truly “missing” either. Those numbers are created by maximum possible production numbers within the WMD program and then attempting to have the Iraqi’s prove that they had destroyed them all. Especially when you don’t keep great records, receipts go missing. How do you prove you destroyed something if you have no record of creating it?</p>
<p>Second, the Ba’ath party in Iraq was vastly different then the one in Syria. To describe the Ba’athist in Syria as being “the same party” as Saddam would be very misleading.</p>