<p>Actually, the neocons did say this war would be easy, that it would require only 50K troops, that the oil $ would pay for it, that we would be greeted with rose petals, etc etc. But you are right, things should fall into line just fine, as the insurgency is in its “last throes”. Mission accomplished.</p>
<p>“It’s hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine.” –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003</p>
<p>The 1.7 million is one million targeted by Bill Clinton, half of them children (sources are the FAO and confirmed by UNICEF, but does not include those killed in the 1998 bombings), and 700,000 under the Bush follies. The 4.2 million refugees and displaced comes from the United Nations High Commission on Refugees.</p>
<p>Yes, the war happened. Some people think it should have some people think it should not have…but the fact is it did happen and we are where we are. We have two options left, we can either stay and try to accomplish our objectives or we can leave without accomplishing our objectives.</p>
<p>Exactly, I am tired of hearing this is the wrong war…last time I checked there was never a right war. We did it, it happened, we are there now. The true issue, is how do we leave without creating a vacuum?</p>
<p>It is like our mothers telling us no sense in crying over spilt milk…we can either look at it on the floor or get a paper towel and clean it up.</p>
<p>Move on already…I am of course for bringing home the troops, my DH has done his time in the sandbox, and our DS will either be attending the AFA or going AFROTC, so for my family this has been a part of our life for the last 17 years, and maybe a part for another 17. Yet, my point is by bringing home the troops and creating a vacuum we be looking at another war later on. Think about it, we created Saddam back in the 80’s by backing him.</p>
<p>You guys are creating a false dichotomy. The disagreement is over your terms. You keep saying “it’s either we leave and create a vacuum or stay and win”. The reason all kinds of other people want to leave is because they think the options are actually “we leave now or stay indefinitely and never win”. I’m not entirely sure which one I agree with, but I think there is a lot of plausibility to the latter explanation, especially since this conflict has turned into much more than a purely military action - there are numerous geopolitical confounding factors which I think must be dealt with.</p>
<p>“Yet, my point is by bringing home the troops and creating a vacuum we be looking at another war later on.”</p>
<p>Yes, and Obama has already said that if this were to happen he would reinsert the troops and make them fight there way back in and undo the mess that will have been created in perhaps multiple countries. My nephew begins his pilot training this summer. For his sake, I hope we complete the current war rather than allow it to grow into something that we will be fighting 5 or 10 years from now.</p>
<p>I’m just afraid–as I was before we invaded Iraq–and as George H. W. Bush was also afraid–that there is no way to win this one and that we will borrow ourselves into bankruptcy and have nothing to show for it but more death and more profits for the “Masters of War”. I think of our troops every day–what an incredible sacrifice is made by them and their families. We don’t take good care of our vets and we aren’t careful enough about putting them in harm’s way, imo.</p>
<p>^^ That must be the difference then because I, and the majority of Americans, think that we can and will acheive our goals in Iraq. </p>
<p>“53 percent of Americans a slim majority now believe the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.”</p>
<p>“obese creationists?” Where did that come from? Do we just want to insult as many people as we can?</p>
<p>There are absolutely fundamental differences in perspective that no thread can resolve. I had actively campaigned against the war since before our initial invasion. I was asked to represent my college in a consortium of interested profs. Believe me, I was the most ignorant member though I worked really hard to educate myself.</p>
<p>I have been an anti-war campaigner since I was fifteen. </p>
<p>I do support the troops. Bring them home.</p>
<p>I saw STOP-LOSS today for my birthday, and it’s clear not everyone in Iraq is being given a choice about whether or not to be there, and the Iraqis certainly aren’t. Oh wait. It’s not their country is it?</p>
<p>I probably shouldn’t have started this thread, but when I heard Bush talk about what a turning point the new violence was—I’ve heard this before. I know you are with me on the peace train. Again, a very happy birthday.</p>
<p>The “surge”. First you have to define that psycho-babble; surge just means troop increase. So if you send in more troops and more and more, it’s bound to accomplish something, but is that the point and will it ultimately accomplish anything. We took the same tact in Vietnam, increasing troops and increasing bombing and invading neighboring nations such as Cambodia</p>
<p>When essentially nothing has been accomplished in 5 years (I recall WWII lasting a bit less)…</p>
<p>Just as in Vietnam, the lesson is lost that Iraq is a contrived and created country, created by the western powers, forcing together tribal people that have been at war with each other for thousands of years and will go back at it the day we leave whether that day is today, tomorrow or another 100 years from now as McCain suggests.</p>
<p>The logic of our presence is completely twisted. They rail against us because they don’t want western presence there, so our solution…attack, invade and occupy and then wonder why they hate us all the more. And our response, just stay and stay the course. It is complete insanity, especially as Iraq had nothing to do with attacking us on 9-11 and Al Qaeda had no presence there until we invaded.</p>
<p>It’s Alice in Wonderland. When do we start painting the roses red.</p>
<p>I believe that we are now in Iraq at the point where, if this were a drug-addicted adult child, we as the parents would be saying ‘we’re past the point where we can help any more, it’s breaking our marriage, it’s dragging us into bankruptcy, we’ve done all we know how to do to help our child, nothing has changed, and now we must let him sink or swim on his own.’ The Iraqi gov’t, such as is it, has no incentive to create a nation so long as the US continues to send in troops, guns and money. They have, in fact, every incentive not to create a nation <em>because</em> the US sends in troops, guns, and money. Don’t tell me that some of that missing millions isn’t sticking to the fingers of the Iraqi leadership. </p>
<p>It will break hearts when we leave Iraq because we know the human cost will be high, just as it was high in Vietnam. But, I must add, that the nominally communist Vietnam eventually took a place in the community of nations and that the ‘domino theory’ had no validity. The Bush Administration has been wrong about every step of ‘George and Dick’s Incredible Iraqi adventure’ …there’s no reason to believe they are right about what will happen when we leave Iraq.</p>