Republicans determined to stay in Iraq

[k_amp_s]

<p>The administration is against the partitioning of Iraq into Federal regions - but is exactly what has been taking place on the ground level.</p>

<p>We pretty much would have to stay in Iraq in perpetuity - and even then it’s no guarantee that the Sunnis and Shias wouldn’t lose patience and start killing each other (as well as both groups shooting at our boys).</p>

<p>If we leave in 1 year, in 5 years or 10 – the Sunnis and Shias will likely end up fighting each other anyway (10, 20 or 50 years is nothing for carrying grudges in that region).</p>

<p>12 yrs after the Bosnian War, the Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs still hate each other.</p>

<p>And let’s not forget “Kurdistan” which has been serving as a base for Kurdish rebels (or terrorists – depending on your viewpoint) in their attacks against Turkey, a US ally (funny how this admin. Has been awfully mute about that) – and the fact that Turkey has amassed tens of thousands of troops on the border.</p>

[Strick11]

<p>I liked this tagline from an article on one of the recent Bin Laden tapes: “Osama chides Dems for not surrendering fast enough”. Sorta says it all.</p>

<p>BTW, there’s an emerging consensus in some corners of the Left that the Democrats are reading the polls very carefully and have decided to do just enough to placate their most vocal antiwar critics. They really don’t want to take the blame for what might come after we leave Iraq, not after the last time. They blame the peaceniks for the Republican dominance of the White House since the end of Vietnam.</p>

<p>And there are those nagging, real signs that peace is starting to break out in Iraq. Large numbers of Sunnis have already decided the fighting isn’t worth it. If the Shiite tribes catch the fever and continue to swear off the violence as is now being reported…</p>

<p>That’s how civil wars stop, you know, like a darker version of the Donnybrook in the John Ford movie, “The Quiet Man”. The various sides simply get too tired to continue.</p>

[drb]

<p>

That’s how civil wars stop, you know, like a darker version of the Donnybrook in the John Ford movie, “The Quiet Man”. The various sides simply get too tired to continue.

It figures that you would reduce this conflict to a movie starring John Wayne. I think “Reservoir Dogs” may be more apropos - the fighting stops when everyone has killed each other.</p>

<p>And I don’t think it is worth 1000 American lives and $25 billion per year to chaperone the process.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>

the fighting stops when everyone has killed each other.

Can you give an example of any war that stopped after everyone killed each other? To the best of my knowledge, most wars end when the side with the superior fighting power convinces the other side that they may as well give up.</p>

[Strick11]

<p>“To the best of my knowledge, most wars end when the side with the superior fighting power convinces the other side that they may as well give up.”</p>

<p>Or media power.</p>

<p>Wasn’t thinking about that, actually, just about the Donnybrook which was the relevant point, not the cast. It was a pretty different John Wayne movie though. I remember vividly that he did nearly everything he could to avoid fighting in that one.</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>

Can you give an example of any war that stopped after everyone killed each other? To the best of my knowledge, most wars end when the side with the superior fighting power convinces the other side that they may as well give up.

</p>

<p>Civil wars usually continue until very near the bitter end. There is sometimes an option for an international peace keeping mission to hasten the end-game, but not until there has been sufficient killing to get the various factions very near the point of final exhaustion. The key equation is: do I have more to gain from a settlement or more to gain from killing some more?</p>

<p>The problem in Iraq right now is that no faction gains from a political compromise. They all believe they are better off continuing under a “winner take all” format.</p>

[Christcorp]

<p>Personally, I would like to see us encourage those who want to leave the country to do so, and then encourage the rest to go at it and kill each other off. Our job would be to ensure no outside intervention. All the bastards to go at it until there was only one side left. When it’s over, those who left and want to move back under whoever is in charge is free to do so. Then, being the country can not be self sufficient, can negotiate as the other countries do to provide whatever resources they have in return for whatever it is they need. What a great way to let a country start all over.</p>

<p>Of course, there’s so many people that think that is very barbaric. But when you take the “Emotion” out of the decision process, you realize that it’s actually a very good way to eventually end such problems. Contrary to what many believe, the entire world doesn’t think or believe as we do. Many have a totally different set of morals and values. If they think nothing of killing each other, then we should encourage it until they realize, in probably less than a year, that they can no longer continue on that way and they will have to find a peaceful ending or one side will have to flat out win. There aren’t really any other options. That is how it happened in our civil war and every other civil war that has happened.</p>

[uversa]

<p>“To the best of my knowledge, most wars end when the side with the superior fighting power convinces the other side that they may as well give up.”</p>

<p>This wasn’t true of the American Revolution. The British army had superior numbers, weapons and training plus access to all the mercenaries the British treasury could buy. Englad gave up because the cost of conducting a hostile occupation an ocean away were higher than the tax revenue they would get if they won. The colonies had been operating at a loss for England even before the Revolution.</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>

I liked this tagline from an article on one of the recent Bin Laden tapes: “Osama chides Dems for not surrendering fast enough”. Sorta says it all.

</p>

<p>The real fight against Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan/Pakistan, not Iraq – and it was this administration which didn’t put enough troops on the ground in Afghanistan which allowed Bin Laden and his cohorts to escape at the Battle of Tora Bora,</p>

<p>

And there are those nagging, real signs that peace is starting to break out in Iraq. Large numbers of Sunnis have already decided the fighting isn’t worth it. If the Shiite tribes catch the fever and continue to swear off the violence as is now being reported…

</p>

<p>Where are you getting this? The Sunnis have gotten tired of foreign fighters/Al Qaeda in Iraq pushing their strict interpretation of Islamic law – which is why they sought out an alliance w/ the US on the condition that the US no longer insist that “national” Iraqi army or police patrol Sunni areas.</p>

<p>The Sunnis, if anything, are itching to fight the Shia (they much rather kill an “Iranian” than an American).</p>

<p>The Brits gave up b/c they were basically bankrupt - anyway, they won the “peace” by negotiating terms with the Americans right under the noses of the French (yeah, we basically backstabbed the French).</p>

[Strick11]

<p>So, you’re arguing we should invade our ally, Pakistan?</p>

<p>You might have missed this report which was published today:</p>

<p>

“What’s the most important thing Americans need to know about Iraq that they don’t currently know?” I said.</p>

<p>“That we’re fighting Al Qaeda,” he said without hesitation. “[Abu Musab al] Zarqawi invented Al Qaeda in Iraq. The top leadership outside Iraq squawked and thought it was a bad idea. Then he blew up the Samarra mosque, triggered a civil war, and got the whole world’s attention. Then the Al Qaeda leadership outside dumped huge amounts of money and people and arms into Anbar Province. They poured everything they had into this place. The battle against Americans in Anbar became their most important fight in the world. And they lost.”

</p>

<p>[“Al</a> Qaeda Lost”](<a href=“http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001519.html]“Al”>http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001519.html)</p>

<p>BTW, Shiites in Iraq are Arabs, Iranians are Persians. There’s a staggering difference with is obvious to even the Sunnis.</p>

[1sokkermom]

<p>The title of this thread is “Republicans Determined to Stay in Iraq”.</p>

<p>I already posted this link on another election related thread, but it probably is more appropriate here.</p>

<p><a href=“Sen. Clinton Can't Pledge Troop Withdrawal - ABC News”>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3639881&page=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It seems that at least one Democrat is determined to Stay in Iraq too! :eek:</p>

<p>“Sept. 23, 2007
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said this morning that she will not make any pledges regarding a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.” </p>

<p>BUT:
BUT:</p>

<p>"But Clinton reiterated her desire for an immediate troop withdrawal. </p>

<p>“I hope it happens in the next 15 months – but if it doesn’t, it will happen immediately upon my becoming president,” she said. </p>

<p>The senator called for limited missions to remain in place but declined to estimate remaining troop levels. "</p>

<p>Doublespeak??? </p>

<p>mini, this is worse than deafening silence! ;)</p>

[tommybill]

<p>It appears the quotes in post 31 are correct this time. </p>

<p>It is good to see and read that progress is being made here on CC. I appreciate everyone’s indulgence as we have gone through this adjustment, but I am sure everyone is happy to see the positive results.</p>

[1sokkermom]

<p>^ <em>sigh</em> Never gives up.</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>strick11 -

So, you’re arguing we should invade our ally, Pakistan?

</p>

<p>No (the ramifications of invading an Islamic country with nuclear weapons is too great) - but we, or more accurately, this administration, should have killed or captured Bin Laden at Tora Bora when they had the chance (instead, Bin Laden escaped b/c they tried to do it on the “cheap”).</p>

<p>Yeah, we really have two great “allies” in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. One funds and exports the extremist Wahhabi sect of Islam and the other is home to extremist madrasahs (funded largely by Saudi $$) and terrorist training camps.</p>

<p>

You might have missed this report which was published today.

</p>

<p>Zarqawi invented Al Qaeda in Iraq – much to the chagrin of Bin Laden and his cohorts somewhere in Pakistan (you must have missed the reports which stated that Zarqawi ran his own operation and that privately, Zarqawi and Bin Laden butted heads.</p>

<p>You must have also missed the reports that Al Qaeda in Iraq consists of only a few thousand, most of whom are foreign fighters (w/ the majority coming from our Arab “allies” – Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan and Egypt), and are hated by the vast majority of Iraqis (the Shias b/c the foreign fighters are Sunnis who have killed many innocent Shia civilians; the Sunni Iraqis for the very same reason, in addition to not enjoying the strict Islamic lifestyle that Al Qaeda in Iraq dictates).</p>

<p>There is really no local support for Al Qaeda in Iraq (all the support comes from Saudi Arabia, etc.).</p>

<p>Btw, Al Qaeda lost in Anbar NOT b/c we had troops there – but b/c the Sunnis generally got sick of Al Qaeda and they allied w/ us since we no longer insisted on the asinine notion that the “national” (Shia) army and police patrol Sunni areas.</p>

<p>Hence, the locals were against Al Qaeda and they, unlike us, knew exactly who was a foreigner and all of the tricks used to kill over boys.</p>

<p>

BTW, Shiites in Iraq are Arabs, Iranians are Persians. There’s a staggering difference with is obvious to even the Sunnis.

</p>

<p>LOL! I’m quite aware of that. Otoh, I guess you aren’t aware of the fact that a popular insult that Sunni Iraqis use on Shia Iraqis is to refer to them as “Iranians” (hence, me placing the term in quotes).</p>

[Strick11]

<p>

You must have also missed the reports that Al Qaeda in Iraq consists of only a few thousand, most of whom are foreign fighters (w/ the majority coming from our Arab “allies” – Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan and Egypt)…

</p>

<p>That is true, except for the founder, a Jordanian, the initial funder, a Saudi, and the leadership which is all foreign. The conflict between Bin Laden was less over goals than how to achieve them (attacking civilians, for instance) and a classic power struggle in which the group’s founder, hiding in a cave, was worried about the new guy who was taking all the risk and, for a while, making headlines for getting “results”. Sure way to lose power, not butting heads over that.</p>

<p>And on the foreign fighter point, I’m sure you know the purported leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Baghdadi, was the fictional face put on al Qaeda to hide the fact that it wasn’t really an Iraqi based organization.</p>

<p>But, of course, it doesn’t take much to forment trouble. Read the article I linked to. The Lt Colonel being interviewed points out that Ramadi, a city of what, 450,000?, was terrorized by only 150 members of al Qaeda. Rather reminicent of the power of street gangs in a city like LA.</p>

<p>And the Sunnis turned against al Qaeda because of the terror al Qaeda was imposing on their supposed Sunni allies. Our re-surging presence in Anbar allowed the Sunnis stand openly against al Qaeda and help drive the out. The Sunnis fight al Qaeda most certainly, but the major help is really the flow of human intelligence that’s occured since the Iraqis convinced themselves we weren’t just conducting raids and planned to leave once we were done.</p>

<p>That’s really how this strategy differs from the old “bop a mole” strategy. We leave the hammer in the hole, our troops initially, but more and more Iraqi troops, police and community groups.</p>

[tommybill]

<p>Re: Post 33 …1Sokkermom……thank you for the kind words concerning my work ethic.</p>

<p>Reading in your recent post with its accurate account of what Sen. Clinton said has made my efforts worthwhile. I am sure you also feel better about posting on CC now that you understand the importance of truth telling and not misleading others.</p>

[1sokkermom]

<p>^ I will continue to ignore the constant condescending pathetic nonsense that some posters insist on posting to make themselves feel better, superior or fulfilled.</p>

<p>Phew, now I feel better. And I have told the truth and not mislead a soul. :o</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>so , who here would be excited for their child to head into that quaqmire of a “war”</p>

<p>working along side blackwater mercenaries, getting paid three times as much? </p>

<p>did you know there are almost as many mercenaries in Iraq as American soldiers, and we are talking gun toting mercenaries, roaming the streets, dressed like our soldiers, but basically answering to an american company, who seems to answer to no-one, despite the story in the news- hmmmm, wonder wh NOW that is coming out</p>

<p>so in real numbers there are over 250,000 there and STILL it isnt much better</p>

<p>and I am not referring to REAL contractors in those blackwater #s- those numbers don’t count the people who are trying to fix the infrastructure we distroyed</p>

<p>sokkermom, would you let your H go over there to work?</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>I recommend that you stop reading whatever blog you are getting your data from - it is nowhere nearly accurate (but, what else is new). There are about 100,000 contractors in Iraq but the VAST majority are not doing military types of things. Most are linguists, truck drivers, infrastructure workers, etc. The infamous Blackwater only has approx. 1,000 security contractors there.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401311.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401311.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>But, hey, if we can support a private security force equal to the number of soldiers there and at three times the pay for only $1.5B, then I say lets do it:</p>

<p>

The military plans to outsource at least $1.5 billion in security operations this year,

<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061502602.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061502602.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[1sokkermom]

<p>“sokkermom, would you let your H go over there to work?”</p>

<p>Ummm… I do not control what my husband does. If he decided to work there, it would be his choice and I would support it. (We have been happily married for 25 years, and have supported each other throughout, and will continue to do so.) The “contractors” who go there will do so willingly.</p>

<p>The better question would be, would you want your S to go there as a soldier? That answer would be … No, I personally wouldn’t want him there at all. However, S made a decsion to go if he has to. He joined ROTC, and will be commissioned as an army officer after graduation. He knew the risk and willingly accepted it. War or no war.</p>

<p>My point was that Hillary talks out of both sides of her mouth. And yes, as a mother of a future military officer, I would like to know what his chances of being deployed are. Hillary has said that she is for immediate withdrawal. What she doesn’t admit to is that she will be keeping many many troops there and continually deploying new troops there to replenish those that come home. So yes, I do want to know how many troops will remain. She hasn’t answered the question and refuses to do so. </p>

<p>I honestly think that most democrats would prefer complete withdrawal NOW.</p>