The troop surge is working--and war is peace

Parent Cafe
41

<p>

It sounds to me like you are stuck on 2006 thinking. Have you not noticed the great progress that has been made in increased security since the surge was in place? Have you not noticed the beginnings of political reconciliation with laws for amnesty, deBaathification and regional elections? Have you not noticed that the most recent uptick in violence was not the result of attacks against the government but the government beginning to feel strong enough to go on the offensive to bring previously uncontrolled sections of the country? Yes, violence has increased, but as General Hayden said on Meet the Press this morning the actions that are being conducted now were actions that would need to have been done at some time if Iraq is ever going to become a unified stable country. Using a conventional warfare analogy, it is like the increased violence that occurred in WW II when we had to have a D-Day or invade Iwo Jima.</p>

<p>Yes, we see buildings burning and dead bodies which is never a good thing, but if that is all you are seeing, you are missing the bigger picture. I was quite impressed that Maliki, a Shiite, felt confident enough in his military that they would go on the offensive against a Shiite enemy. I’m guessing that the symbolism of this is not lost among the Sunni insurgents who would likely have assumed that the entire Shiite majority is aligned against them.</p>

42

<p>In the time I just spent reading this forum…2 minutes…$600,000 was spent on the war…our money…how do we want to spend it?
It is my understanding that the cost of a barrel of oil was roughly $23/barrel and is now over $100/barrel-in the last 5 years-Price of gas looming at $4/gallon.
and some suggest we could spend another 5-10-100 years fighting in Iraq…our money…our children…our husbands and wifes…how do we want to spend it?</p>

43

<p>Please point to who suggested we could spend another 100 years fighting in Iraq. I’ll save you dem ■■■■■■ the embarassment of posting the McCain quote because if you read the entire quote that’s NOT what he says.</p>

44

<p>That depends on your interpretation, Lax. McCain said America could maintain a “presence” (whatever that means) in Iraq for “maybe 100” years. He qualified the statement a bunch of different ways, so we can argue this till the cows come home, but the reality is I think that if it came down to keeping the status quo for many years to come McCain might just do it.</p>

45

<p>1of42 did you read the entire quote? It’s pretty damn clear what he said</p>

<p>…at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.</p>

<p>“Maybe 100,” McCain replied. We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me…As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."</p>

<p>[Two</a> semi-dishonest arguments: Obama and Pakistan and McCain’s hundred-year quote](<a href=“http://www.nelsonguirado.com/index.php/asymmetric/2008/02/23/two-semi-dishonest-arguments-pakistan-an]Two”>http://www.nelsonguirado.com/index.php/asymmetric/2008/02/23/two-semi-dishonest-arguments-pakistan-an)</p>

46

<p>I understand exactly what he said, and it’s just as weaselly as Obama and Clinton’s refusal to set forth a specific plan for withdrawal. McCain would be OK with America being in Iraq for “maybe 100” years “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed”. Oh. I see. And his line for when the actual violence becomes unacceptable?</p>

<p>The problem was that McCain was asked one question (how long would you continue this war) and answered an entirely different one (how long would you keep troops in Iraq in a minimal, peacekeeping role). It was a weasel answer. And he answered that way because the answer to the first question (“As long as I think we can achieve our objectives” or something like that) just isn’t politically expedient.</p>

<p>No, it’s not fair to use that sound bite out of context. But it’s also inaccurate to take the weasel words of that response and act like it means McCain is against all the carnage going on in Iraq right now.</p>

47

<p>"Have you not noticed the great progress that has been made in increased security since the surge was in place?:</p>

<p>Have you not seen the 600,000 ethnically cleansed, forced from their homes at gunpoint, with American soldiers on the corners looking on, and the walls built by U.S. contractors with U.S. funds between neighborhoods, and pro-Western doctors, lawyers, engineers, and teachers who now have their daughters going out to the streets as sex workers so that they can eat? Have you not noticed that medical supplies are no longer getting to hospitals in Baghdad and elsewhere because they are being hijacked by Sunnis toting American weapons and sold on the black market? Have you not noticed that virtually the entire reduction in violence since the so-called “surge” began is due to the ceasefire declared by Al-Sadr?</p>

48

<p>bethievt, mythmom, other anti-war people: I was 100% anti-war from the start of this war. I saw no reason at all to invade Iraq. I never once, not even for a microsecond, believed that Bush & Co even cared one bit about the possibility of WMD in Iraq. I allowed for the possibility that Saddam had some chemical weapons and may have had a nuclear program, but I saw no compelling national interest in unilaterally declaring war on Iraq. </p>

<p>Today, I see that we have destroyed Iraq. In Saddam’s time, there was oppression but at least the people had figured out what they had to do (or not do) in order to live a relatively normal and peaceful life. You couldn’t go out and make a political speech against the Baath party, but you could raise a family, eat, play, get an education, get medical care, etc. Today, even those bare necessities have been taken away from the Iraqi people. In addition, as mini keeps reminding us, there is a refugee crisis because Sunnis have been dislodged (ethnic cleansing) from Shia neighborhoods and vice versa. There is no infrastructure. The police force and military are weak and demoralized. There are no credible national leaders. If we leave at this point, there is bound to be even more bloodshed as various factions fight it out and kill each other. It is disingenious to say that it is just a “civil war” of the Iraqi people and that we should not get involved and that if the death count of Iraqis goes up, then well, it is just too bad. No, this humanitarian disaster was “made in the USA”. You break it, you own it. </p>

<p>The debate today should be more about how to fix the mess and less about how soon to get out. I know this will be expensive in terms of American lives and treasure. Too bad- it is the price we have to pay for a bad decision our President made (with Congressional approval, and overwhelming public approval) . We cannot just walk away from this obligation any more than we can default on our Treasury bonds. We cannot afford to lose our reputation and credibility.</p>

49

<p>Here’s the full question/answer so you can decide for yourself </p>

<p>[Democrats</a>, McCain and the Iraq War - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog](<a href=“http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/democrats-mccain-and-the-iraq-war/]Democrats”>Democrats, McCain and the Iraq War - The New York Times)</p>

50

<p>vicaiousparent</p>

<p>If I thought it was fixable–by us–I might feel that we should stay longer. Remember Vietnam? We finally just had to leave because it was hopeless and people were no longer willing to sacrifice their children for a hopeless endeavor. And yes, it was a bloody mess before it stabilized. Why didn’t we learn something from that?</p>

51

<p>Yeah bethievt, I remember Vietnam. But I don’t think this is Vietnam. There are many parallels but the situation is different in Iraq. We should not let our Vietnam experience cloud our Iraq decisions. </p>

<p>I believe it is fixable, not by us alone, but we will need to be part of the solution. We may have to ‘eat humble pie’ and get the UN involved, and definitely we need to let Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other regional powers have a say in what happens. We should throw away our ideas of what a good Iraq should be like- we are looking for a united, secular country. Maybe Iraq needs to become a loose federation of Islamic states. I don’t know. We need to play a more active role in trying to solve this problem. And until the problem is solved, we need to help maintain basic security in Iraq because without that there will not be a solution.</p>

52

<p>“Remember Vietnam? We finally just had to leave because it was hopeless and people were no longer willing to sacrifice their children for a hopeless endeavor.”</p>

<p>What you think you remember about Vietnam is a distorted view of reality but is consistent with what people would like you to think. The reality is that we had achieved a situation very close to what we have been living with in North Korea for over 50 years. A peace treaty had been signed and was initially adhered to be all parties. The S. Vietnamese were succesful in maintaining a relative calm even though the vast majority of US troops had already left. However, the Democratic US Congress then signalled to the world that it would not live up to its commitment made in the peace process by forbidding any money or further support via air power. The North reacted to this by attacking the South and when the US failed to respond to the violation of the treaty, they continued their attack and using the full support of the Soviets they defeated a South Vietnamese army that no longer had access to funds to defend themselves. The result was a victory by the North and then the subsequent “cleansing” of South Vietnam through mass executions and concentration camps.</p>

<p>So, yes, there is a lesson to be learned from Vietnam, but not the lesson that you think. The lessons are:</p>

<ul>
<li>that it is possible to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory </li>
<li>near-term ramifications on the local population can be horrific</li>
<li>there is a long-term ramification on the US in terms of its loss of credibility, thus giving hope to future generations of terrorists who know that they can manipulate the American media and populace into submission.</li>
</ul>

<p>Unfortunately, there is likely to be one additional negative ramification with Iraq that did not exist with Vietnam. Since Southest Asia does not have as significant strategic value as the Middle East, when the conflict overflowed into neighboring countries there was no global impact. With Iraq, we won’t be so lucky since the Middle East is critically important for the entire world. The result could easily be a global depression and the ultimate need to re-enter militarily with significantly higher potential for loss of lives.</p>

53

<p>FF – Our credibility is already shot to hell and was the minute the Abu Grahib pictures hit the 'net. Nobody is listening to GWB these days, not even the American population. The more he talks, the less people listen. Remember his drive on SS? Every time they trotted him out, the proposal’s popularity plummeted. He’s got a negativity field as big as all outdoors. When he says ‘good news, folks, there’s progress in Iraq’ even the people who do listen discount what he says. </p>

<p>As for giving hope to terrorists, as long as we have a millitary presence in the Middle East, they’ll have easy targets for which they don’t even need to plan all that hard to hit. You’d rather stay put, losing a couple dozen soldiers a month, than face a ‘what if’ as you put forward in your last paragraph. I’m not. The troops have done all that can be asked of them. This war of occupation is breaking our military down, and it has already done such a number on the National Guard by sending them there over and over that I am afraid it will be twenty years before the Guard recovers. </p>

<p>As for ‘strategic value’ just say ‘oil.’ Everybody already knows that’s what you are talking about. </p>

<p>Vicariousparent – If this present administration had the ability to learn from history, we wouldn’t have entered Iraq in the first place. Somebody might have remembered the huge mess that Middle East meddling caused both the Soviets and the British Empire. But no, they decided that ‘American know-how’ could solve an intractable problem. Guess what. Didn’t work. Time to fall back and reassess what is to be gained vs. losses. But these guys don’t do that. ‘Stay the course. The Surge. More violence means progress.’ Pardon me while I retch.</p>

54

<p>That’s a great philosophy you have Novelisto. We would certainly be even better off today had we used it throughout our history! :rolleyes:</p>

<p><em>sarcasm</em></p>

55

<p>Okay I just have to ask…why is everyone so wrapped up in this?</p>

<p>Is it due to the fact of the cost or the fatalities?</p>

<p>If it is due to the cost then I need to ask, how has the cost personally effected you…
If you say our economy is in the tanks, remember the credit crisis has been more of a factor than the war.
If you say the debt we are incurring, remember the tax rate has not gone up to support it</p>

<p>If it is the troop fatalities/and injuries, then I need to ask, is anyone in your direct family serving?
I have a spouse who has been over there several times since Gulf I, I have a son who will be going to college and a ROTC cadet, so if McCain is right he will also be there shortly after his graduation. None of us, who have had to endure this, feel that the surge was wrong. Yes, DH was in the green zone, I know the fear, but I do support the surge, I have many friends whose husbands are there right now, and they agree it is better now than it was a couple of years ago.</p>

<p>If you say we went in for the oil…I don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that the world is now global. The oil issue is because you have India and China demanding more, thus it was bound to go up. We have not built a refinery in @ 30 yrs., they are breaking down. The reality is we can’t refine fast enough and that is a part of why the prices are going up. Place in inflation and we are not worse off than Carter administration. I believe we are actually better. Under Carter our mtg rates were 18%.</p>

<p>If you say we were fed a line, and went in for WMD, the senate and congress were given the same info…the intelligence world is to be blamed for their inability to collect the proper info, yet, that still brings us back we are there!</p>

<p>If we leave now, what will the world pay for the vacuum created. Iraqis (sp?) are now returning home. I know Bagdad is now under 24hr curfew…but did you ever think it is do to our own political upheaval here? If they believe we are not supporting this then it gives the insurgents more power.</p>

<p>I respect all of you, but nobody here has really come out and said how the removal of troops will be positive</p>

56

<p>See, this is the big divide. You ask how we think removing the troops will be positive. Simple: except in the most far-fetched of scenarios, it won’t. It’ll be negative. But those of us who think the troops should be removed (actually, I can’t speak for anyone - so I) think that leaving the troops there will be more negative - in terms of loss of life, in terms of wasted money, and in terms of deepening the rifts between sects and other groups, so that when we eventually do leave (as we must) there will be irrevocable damage.</p>

<p>No, it’s not that we think leaving now will be a positive - at least in the short run. But I really can’t see the perspective that staying there for the long run will be. History has not borne out that idea.</p>

57

<p>“But I really can’t see the perspective that staying there for the long run will be. History has not borne out that idea.”</p>

<p>I beg to differ. The history of Iraq is not filled with sectarian violence. It took active instigation by al Qaeda to trigger it. With the surge there has been some reconciliation already. They showed on the news the other day how one town, which had to have a wall built to keep the two sides apart from each other, was now taking the wall down because it was no longer needed.</p>

58

<p>ff: There is no history of sectarian violence? Where’ve you been living? Sectarian violence was the main hallmark of Saddam’s regime - brutal oppression of the Kurds, violence against the Shiites, all of that. The only difference now is that the Sunnis aren’t the governing sect, and so violence is more widespread and multi-dimensional than it was before, where the “sectarian violence” essentially amounted to the occasional gassing of a group that Saddam deemed problematic.</p>

59

<p>“There is no history of sectarian violence? Where’ve you been living? Sectarian violence was the main hallmark of Saddam’s regime - brutal oppression of the Kurds, violence against the Shiites, all of that.”</p>

<p>That was violence from the government towards the Kurds and Shia. However, if you look at how the grass-roots interacted, they were far more “integrated” than blacks and whites in the US. Inter-marriage was common and neighborhoods were integrated. Even after saddam fell, the sectarian violence was not a major issue until 3 years later when al Qaeda bombed the Sammarra mosque. </p>

<p>

[Iraqi</a> mixed marriages dwindle as terror blitz divorces Sunni from Shia - Telegraph](<a href=“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/18/nirq118.xml]Iraqi”>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/18/nirq118.xml)</p>

<p>It was a myth promted by the media that Iraq was a powder keg of sectarian violence ready to blow.</p>

60

<p>Iraq wasn’t a powder keg, by any means - but it sure as hell wasn’t totally stable. And I hate to say it, but Saddam’s fascist leadership style kept it that way. Whatever the spark was, Iraq certainly is a powder keg now - and I don’t see military intervention changing that. Something else is needed.</p>