<p>
</p>
<p>Against whom? Bomb Sadr City? I don’t think that the administration can even identify an “enemy” in Iraq right now. The country has disintegrated into multi-faceted chaos. Among the many military players in Baghdad right now are Sunni militias, Shia militias, Iraqi forces loyal to sectarian leaders, US military, and tens of thousands of private security forces. There is no clear-cut “us” versus “them” as there would be in a conventional military effort.</p>
<p>ten characters</p>
<p>“I am all in favor of “winning” however that is presently defined”</p>
<p>OK, how is it presently defined? And while we’re at it, who’s the enemy?</p>
<p>I think we need to back up. Of all the things that have been proposed, the administration is going with the one option that the NIE says has increased global terrorism and plunged Iraq into chaos. So the question becomes, is it hoping that if we keep doing the same thing over and over we’ll get a different response…or is the response we’re getting exactly what it wants?</p>
<p>Before asking if citizens support the administration’s policies, we need to ask ourselves what those policies are designed to do, and if the people promoting the policies think that stability in the Middle East and a reduction in terrorism is even possible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Robert Gates
12/5/06</p>
<p>Is that supposed to be a definition of victory, or of the enemy?</p>
<p>The patience to do what? The will to do what? </p>
<p>I think how people answer that question sheds a lot of insight. For end-timers, peace and stability in the Middle East simply aren’t on the table, because it contradicts their ideas about the direction the world is heading. So when they talk about patience and will, they mean patience and will to keep stirring the pot till the Middle East is aflame and our country is destroyed. </p>
<p>It’s the same reason they don’t care about the national debt and its effect on future generations. They don’t expect to have many.</p>
<p><strong>twilight zone music</strong></p>
<p>I notice you still haven’t answered Hanna’s question.</p>
<p>I’m not going to pretend to even begin to have any depth of understanding the convoluted structure of the jihadist insurgent forces supplied by Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon in Iraq which is the “enemy.” For that, you can read the dads, above, or do your own research on the internet. We also, imo, have a moral duty not to leave behind what we are partially responsible for creating.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I already know what I think. I want to know what you think.</p>
<p>Since you don’t know who the enemy is, and apparently the experts in your government have been unable to explain that to you, how will you know when we’ve achieved “victory”?</p>
<p>At least HH admits now that there was no real enemy in Iraq till our occupation and bad governance created an insurgency.</p>
<p>I wonder how winning is defined? HH still won’t say.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The flip side of that equation is that an effective war on terrorism and any effective approach to solving issues of Iraq, Iran, and the entire Middle East requires the cooperation of the regional and world community. The United States cannot unilaterally address these problems.</p>
<p>Bush’s rejection of diplomacy and cooperation has isolated US foreign policy. Without the support of other countries, we are facing an uphill climb. Or, to paraphrase Gates, “There is a risk that others looking around the world would see that we don’t give a damn about working with our allies or countries that also have interests in the region.”</p>
<p>I wouldn’t exactly say that the experts in MY government haven’t been able to explain who the enemy is to me, hanna. I would say that <em>I</em> have been derelict in MY duty to fully understand the nature of the insurgent forces. That is because I am a mother of two children who also works full-time, has a large house to clean, laundry to do, grocery shopping, meal-cooking, car-pooling, etc. etc. I try to keep abreast of what is going on in the world, but I am no expert, by any means, on the situation in Iraq. I would dare say few of our Congressmen/women, are experts on the situation to the level of many of our posters here on this thread.</p>
<p>My primary concern is that a) we truly support our troops in whatever mission our government charges them to do and b) we do not abandon the people in Iraq who do continue to want us there.</p>
<p>I can’t see why there is suddenly such a huge push for troop/funds withdrawal (unless, just maybe, it’s politically motivated?). I can’t see why we can’t support the surge, give it a chance, shut up about it and hope and pray for the best.</p>
<p>Mistakes have been made and admitted to. Why do we have to give up now? Why at this time?</p>
<p>In the meantime, I’m sure this thread will quiet down, as anyone of conviction should be in D.C. with Cindy and Jane today.</p>
<p>BTW, on the issue of enemies. For the most part, we have avoided turning the majority Shia population in Iraq into enemies. That has been the one block that has been reasonably supportive (or at least patient) of the United States in Iraq. Yes, they would like us to leave, but they have not been openly attacking US forces to any significant degree.</p>
<p>A major component of the new Bush strategy is declaring war against the Shia – not only the Shia militias in Iraq, but an escalation of hostilities against Shia neighbor Iran. The result may well be an increase in the number of enemies we are fighting in Iraq.</p>
<p>I am truly sorry that ID takes each and every opportunity to diss Palau.</p>
<p>But it is true that it is the Iranian-backed majority Shia who have been most patient - even though more than 70% think it is a good idea to kill Americans. That’s because, regardless of what happens, they end up in control in one form or another.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s spotty. But, there is no question that many US Senators and some Congressmen are extremely well-versed on the details of the situation on the ground in Iraq. I have heard much more nuanced, detailed discussions of Iraq from the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee than I have from administration officials.</p>
<p>BTW, I think that our military generals also have a pretty good handle on the dynamics in Iraq. That’s why Bush had to fire all of them before announcing the surge. The generals who have been serving in Iraq all have stated that increasing troop levels is a mistake because the presence of the US military is actually contributing to the problems by providing a convenient target that allows the Iraqis to avoid dealing with the underlying issues. The Generals on the ground did NOT want to insert US forces into the middle of a Sunni/Shia civil war.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe because it’s been tried twice and failed both times? </p>
<p>Maybe because the resources could be better spent bringing our real enemies–Al Queda–to justice instead of creating more?</p>
<p>Maybe because there are American lives on the line at home and abroad?</p>
<p>Maybe because Americans have a right and an obligation to ensure that our country is run wisely and well, instead of by the whim of an authority figure?</p>
<p>Maybe because we want and expect our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to have the blessings of liberty–something that won’t happen if we don’t exercise common sense and fiscal prudence in foreign affairs?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, Al Queda is a player in Iraq. We walked right into a trap they laid…basically pinning us down in a quagmire.</p>
<p>Al Queda doesn’t really have a dog in the hunt as far as Iraq goes. What they have is the opportunity to cause as much disruption as possible so that US forces are stymied. Specifically, Al Queda strategy was to trigger Sunni versus Shia violence. The real flash point was Al Queda’s bombing of the Samara mosque last spring.</p>
<p>The best guess is that the money for the Sunni “insurgency” is being supplied from the billions looted by the Bathists as Baghdad fell. The suicide bombers are being supplied by the Al Queda network. Al Queda has historically despised the secular Baathists. It’s a coalition of convenience now because both groups have similar objectives: hurt the United States.</p>
<p>There was little Al Queda presence in Iraq before we invaded. The one training outpost was actually located in an area under Kurdish control, not Baathist control. Saaddam threw a few bones to Al Queda, just like he funnelled a little money and support to any enemy of the United States (and, to any allies of the US…see the UN Oil for Food corruption scheme).</p>
<p>What’s interesting is the Kurds. How well the occupation is going in the Kurdish north lends strong support to the recommendation made by the Iraq Study Group, to partition Iraq. But because that isn’t what the right wing wants the public to know, they are deliberately downplaying this story even as they lament that no one reports any good news from Iraq.</p>