I was going to write something about the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.
But, as is often the case, Jeff Kouba at TvM does it better.
Excerpt:
Bush was laying out the case that diplomacy means nothing if it isn’t backed up with a stick. Tea and crumpets do not make thugs and terrorists shake in their boots.
Hillary and Barack and the craven party they represent want to go back to those days of feckless diplomacy where dictators quickly figure out that there are no real consequences for aggressive violence. This is really what we’re voting on in November. What are we going to tell the world? Will we say as a nation we still have the resolve to see this through, or we will signal retreat?
Go read it.
I continue to support the GWoT, but that support is starting to wane as we get more promises and less results. I’m a dad with a Son on the verge of deployment to the Al Asad airbase for 6 months minimum in the giant sand box. I have a question I would like some of you to consider, and even answer with some specifics, not generalities.
What exactly does “to see this through” mean and how much longer do you think it is going to take. Because, frankly, I never signed on to perpetual war, I signed on to a mission to tackle Islamic extremism and liberate a country from a vicious dictator. Not to be a Middle Eastern Baby sitter.
Honestly, don’t you think it is long overdue we begin significant redeployment, within the region, and allow the Iraqi’s to be responsible for themselves.
In all seriousness, please, not snark. I really am curious what some of you think the end game is here.
Respectfully
Flash
My honest assessment (without snark).
Two more years at current troop levels, or maybe pre-surge levels, with another two years for gradual draw down to a continuous deployment of about 40,000.
“to see this through” means to me that Iraq never reverts to civil war or despotism.
I’m going to call an old friend of mine who just returned from Iraq this past month after spending nearly 3 years in theater. He’s an Army Col that served with civilian affairs, working with local sheiks and with the Iraqi government. He has always been very excited about his work and extremely hopeful for success, but I haven’t spoken with him in nearly a year.
As a “chicken hawk” with no moral authority, I tend to give his thoughts a high degree of weight. I’ll let you know what he thinks.
As the necessity of the surge showed, waging war means nothing if it isn’t backed up with a sufficiently-sized stick, either.
“Hillary and Barack and the craven party they represent want to go back to those days of feckless diplomacy…”
Feckless diplomacy? Madeline Albright – feckless? The next thing you’ll be intimating is we cannot negotiate with Kim Jong Il or Ahmedinijad; that they would be unwilling to come to the Peace Table and seriously discuss our “common objectives?” Feckless diplomacy? The formula isn’t that hard for you right-wing bloggers to comprehend: If they don’t come to the negotiation table, we lob a cash bomb at them. Buys their complicity for a while. When they need another, they’ll let us know. In the mean time, the Americans can keep watching Sports Center and American Idol.
“Hillary and Barack and the craven party they represent want to go back to those days of feckless diplomacy…”
Feckless diplomacy? Madeline Albright? Feckless is hardly the adjective that jumps out at me. Asinine, backwards, inept, clueless, pandering, submissive, gratuitous, counterintuitive, self-aggrandizing, maybe! But feckless? No, feckless is too high a compliment for the former Secretary of State.
What exactly does “to see this through” mean and how much longer do you think it is going to take.
No snark. “This” has been going on since 1979 when radical Iranian Islamists (including now President Ahmidenijad) invaded sovereign US soil and kidnapped American citizens.
Prior to that OPEC, led by the Saudis had waged economic war in the form of an oil embargo.
A state sponsor of terror, Saddam invaded his neighbor Kuwait, and our response was typically weak, in that we left him in power.
Repeated limited response to provocation led up to 9/11.
Since the cold war started in 1945 and lasted 40 years, I personally assume it will last until we convince radical Islamists that we will maintain a position of strength and respond to threats with overwhelming force.
We are going to be in Iraq for a long time, regardless of the party occupying the White House.
gracias, mb.
Flash sez, What exactly does “to see this through” mean and how much longer do you think it is going to take. Because, frankly, I never signed on to perpetual war
Of course you didn’t, none of us did. A bunch of radicals made the choice for us.
There are any number of examples, but here’s an excerpt from an Al Qaeda video last year.
“Pay attention, infidels! Your organziations, your companies, your trade and your ambassadors all over the world will remain our targets as long as our heads rest upon our shoulders. And our Jihad against you will continue until this civilization of kufr is history and a Caliphate based on the Prophetic model has been restored to this earth.”
Is that all just talk? You willing to take that chance? Or perhaps, when faced with an enemy who thinks it’s doing the will of Allah in stamping us out, we gird up our loins and do what it takes to eradicate this ideology.
Military action is just part of it. But a part nonetheless. It’ll take as long as it takes.
We’ve been talking about the end game since the 7th Century, Flash. Periodically someone in the Islamic world decides it would be a good idea to try to establish a caliphate and the West is required to beat it back. Things may die down for a while, but there’s no reason to believe that the end game will take place in our lifetime.
God speed to your son, Flash. My brother-in-law and my nephew have both served a couple of tours now. If it means anything to you, they both believe we are doing the right thing.
Kermit said: “This” has been going on since 1979 when radical Iranian Islamists (including now President Ahmidenijad) invaded sovereign US soil and kidnapped American citizens.”
Mr. D said: “We’ve been talking about the end game since the 7th Century”
You wingnuts should get your stories straight. Maybe split the diff at Jefferson and the Barbary pirates?
Angryclown traces the current troubles to 1953, when BP talked the Eisenhower administration into a shortsighted CIA-backed coup to depose Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh and install the Shah. A straight-line connection to Khomeini, the U.S. retreat from Beirut under Reagan and more recent troubles with militant Islam. And a parallel example of the blowback that can result from attempts to meddle in the Middle East, on the cheap and without clear strategic goals.
Jeff Kouba gave too much information: “Or perhaps, when faced with an enemy who thinks it’s doing the will of Allah in stamping us out, we gird up our loins and do what it takes to eradicate this ideology.”
Dude, we really don’t want to think about your loins, m’kay?
Thanks folks,
MoN, I am very curious to hear what your buddy has to say.
PeterH; agreed!
Kerm; Although I agreed with Richardson on virtually every other issues, he was wrong on Iraq, still is. ‘No residual forces’ is simply not practical or even responsible. the 40,000 figure MoN shares seems an acceptable goal.
Jeff K; Mostly Chest thumping at this point. “”we gird up our loins and do what it takes to eradicate this ideology.”” This is a tough one, but where Richardson was right, was the need to create/build/deploy a Muslim peace keeping force. We can win this through a generation of education if we can stifle and limit the extremists we are picking off one at a time. The answer here, I think, is not to eradicate them so much, as to show the non extremists that can be drawn into their game that there is a better way of life. Similar to the battle in Urban America where our youth run to ‘The Gangs’ for their family and get sucked into the criminal cycle/system. There is a far greater number of ‘good’ Muslims then the few awful extremists. Just like 99% of Christians ore good, but there is that 1% that take everything literally and think it is justifiable to blow up clinics and Olympic parks.
Mr. D, Thanks for the wishes. As AC points out, people have different views on what the catalyst was here. Cause is certainly important when attempting to determine the fix. Where this Admin went so wrong, is going in without a plan on getting out. Those of us that have stuck by this administration need to take some responsibility for enabling the situation, I am not sure I can be on of those for much longer. But like what was already mentioned, no matter who is electing in November, we’ll be there for awhile yet, I just hop we don;t end up marking a 10th anniversary.
AC; you make an important point in your last paragraph, and I hope those reading don’t arbitrarily dismiss it!
Flash
Angryclown traces the current troubles to 1953,
So what you’re saying is that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is correct, and the chickens have come home to roost. Do you want God to damn America too, (if you believe in God).
Stupid is as stupid does, Master.
no matter who is electing in November,
Flash,
Haven’t you pretty much said “anybody but McCain”?
Hillary! and Obama are arguing over who will get out the quickest.
Do you want to get out as fast as possible or as succsessful as possible?
Stupid is as stupid does, Master.
I’ll take that as a YES.
“Hillary and Barack and the craven party they represent want to go back to those days of feckless diplomacy….”
Feckless? Madeline Albright, feckless? This would presume she had feck to lessen.
Flash sez, Mostly Chest thumping at this point…
I posted this back in January, but here are a few words from someone who is there…
“In the same way the Cold War was a struggle for our national survival, the threat represented by violent islamic fascists is nothing short of annihilation for americans and our modern way of life, government, and society.
Some don’t believe it and laugh it off.
I invite them to try some adventure tourism and visit any area that alquado wackos have taken root. Slavery to viscious butchers murdering any and all from any creed or religion who disagree with their intolerant ideology is their lot in life. The good news in Iraq is that in many areas which tried alquados way have rejected it wholeheartedly. If some americans don’t believe me, then I encourage them to send their wives and children to live in Talibanistan and see how it works out for them.
I have seen animals driven mad by rabies and looking into their eyes is little different than meeting an adherent of alquado. It is a chilling vision of pure and utter evil, insanity and hatred.
For me, it is clear who we are fighting and why. I intend no undue alarm but that is what we face as americans. This is the struggle of a generation.”
Angryclown traces the current troubles to 1953
I think something happened in 1948 that might be a touch notable when it comes to pointing fingers at Middle East unrest.
Not that I disagree with what happened in 1948, mind you, but it was a pretty significant development and has been an ongoing and violent impediment to U.S. interests in the Middle East.
Come on, AC. This is a nice soft, easy lob I’m tossing over the plate at you. What happened in 1948? What could it have been?
Yossarian asked: “Come on, AC. This is a nice soft, easy lob I’m tossing over the plate at you. What happened in 1948? What could it have been?”
Your mom met a returning troop ship?
Okay. . . what ELSE happened in 1948?
Oh, and, ewwww, my mom was only five years old in 1948, which makes her behavior all the more scandalous.
You made me laugh, Yoss.
I know where you’re going, and there’s certainly some truth in it. But consider that for decades, the regimes that caused the most trouble for Israel and the U.S. were mostly led by secular autocrats who actively surpressed religiously motivated groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.
Kermit is actually right to identify the turning point as the ascendency of Khomeini and seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. But that event, and the dormant hatred of the U.S. that was unleashed, resulted directly from the interference, a generation earlier, by a different Kermit.
Look, McCain’s right.
Al Qaeda attacked us.
Al Qaeda in Iraq is obviously in Iraq.
And Iran.
We had to attack Iraq because Al Qaeda attacked us and next we’re gonna have to attack Iran because they attacked Iraq.
It’s how we’re making ourselves safer.
/jc
But that event, and the dormant hatred of the U.S. that was unleashed, resulted directly from the interference, a generation earlier, by a different Kermit.
Roosevelt? He killed himself after the Great War.
Well, you’re close. Kermit Sr. killed himself during WWII. Kermit Jr. was behind the Mossadegh coup.
AC,
638, 1099, 1187, 1192, 1219, 1244, 1803, 1917, 1948, 1953, 1979, 1983, 1985, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003. And that’s just a partial list.
Same war.
Dude, ever think of including the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans? Siege of Vienna?
How is Angryclown supposed to take seriously your reductionist “Islam v. Christendom for Dummies” argument if you don’t even grasp the basic outlines of what you pretend to be talking about?
A suggestion: Go away. Learn a whole bunch of stuff. Come back one day far in the future and have a discussion with Angryclown.
1917!
Go to the Clue Store, Mr. D. Spend freely.
There now, you provided a bit of info I did not have without one ounce of snark. We both benefit.
The most obvious problem with clown’s comical theory is that we are not dealing with people who share our concept of grievance and gratitude. We’ve been sending the Saudi’s billions of dollars every year. Lately hundreds of billions of dollars. The oil is on their territory but they didn’t discover it, they don’t have the technology to exploit it, and they certainly don’t have much use for it.
Yet so many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. None of them seemed to have done an honest days work, thanks to US largess, and the ruling family there is more attuned to the desires of the wahabi’s — whose backing has coincided with their success — than to the desires of the US.
Clown likes the expoited-exploiter version of history. Unfortunately real human beings behave as if they’ve never heard of Marxism.
And yet we’re at war in Iraq, while Saudi Arabia is an ally, huh Terry? That may be the responsibility of a clown, but it’s not Angryclown.
I don’t care if you take me seriously, clown. Based on the available evidence, the only thing you take seriously is your sporadic ability to be a poor man’s Yossarian.
And yes, 1917. 1917 would be the year the British took over Jerusalem, clown. The start of the protectorate, the precursor to the partition in 1947. It’s still a bit of a sore spot for some people. Try to keep up.
I don’t think you understood my comment, AC, so I’ll make it very, very simple:
Iraq is a foreign policy nightmare for the US. Saudi Arabia is a foreign policy nightmare for the US. In the past we have imposed a ruler over Iraq. We have not done so in Saudi Arabia. Therefore whether or not a country is a foreign policy nightmare is not dependent on whether we have imposed a ruler over them.
Simple eh?
MoN “Do you want to get out as fast as possible or as successful as possible?”
I mentioned what Kermit SAID: “We are going to be in Iraq for a long time, regardless of the party occupying the White House.” And I agree. If you listen to how the Dem candidates talk, they make it pretty clear the difference between what they would like to be able to do, and what they must do if there was a push back by al Queda once we begin withdrawing. I don;t give much credi9bility to “Get out now” talk as I do to McCain’s ‘100 year war” attitude.
Terry shares: “we are not dealing with people who share our concept of grievance and gratitude.”
This continues to be one of the main reason I support the ‘idea’ of the GWoT, but struggle with the present administration’s consistent bungling of it. It is the most challenging thing I do lately. The President has made it very difficult, over the last five years.
The rest, my time window means I’ll have to come back for some of the other comments
Flash
Flash-
What would you have done differently in the GWOT? Not that I think it has been fought without mistakes.
I do not count the Iraq War wrong in principle. If we had not overthrown the Baathists and assumed some sort of king-maker role in Iraq, the alternative would have been unacceptable. We would never have known the extent of Sadam’s WMD programs, we would have had to keep the inspections ongoing, and history indicates they would not have continued without a grinding sanctions regime and a few hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq. We also would have had to keep US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, and this was high on Osama’s list of grievances against the West.
Flash and Master – seeing an honest line of discussion here is so refreshing, I hope you don’t mind if I participate..
I think the surge only succeeded in providing limited local security in Baghdad – yet, we were promised advancement on the political front, and were told this was the key to success.
After some initial successes last summer, the situation clearly has plateaued, and I think we’re as likely as not to see a persistent level of guerilla (sic) warfare for a LONG time to come. I also think Iran has decidely beaten us in Iraq – and 2 years to 4 years won’t change that outcome.
Without snark, Mitch predicted success within a year in 2005 – obviously that was wrong, and claiming it here has no more validity than it did then. The point being no amount of time – look at Yugoslavia as an example – will dampen the visceral hatred the Shiites and Sunnis have now created and re-inflamed for each other – heck the Shiites probably already had. Certainly those grudges won’t go away in 4 years, claims it will are silly.
Iraq’s political progress is at a halt, and, despite greater levels of security in Baghdad for months, hasn’t progressed as promised. Beyond that, a long-term presence in Iraq isn’t what the Iraqis desire, not at all. That’s our desire, but not there’s. Even Al Malaki has generally met any such suggestions with great skepticism.
I personally don’t see what staying any longer accomplishes – I have great concern our departure will lead to genocidal reprisals against the Sunnis, and from that, inter-religious warfare. That wafare would rest at our feet- and we have a moral obligation to prevent that. Beyond the disasterous impact it would have on our economy, it’s just wrong to stand by if it were to start.
However, I don’t think our presence there for the next 20 years will make that significantly less likely – in fact, it might make it more likley – because the longer we are there, the more decidedly hostile the Shiites are going to become, thinking they’ve replaced Hussien with simply another dictatorship that protects the Sunnis at their expense.
If the solution were easy, we’d all see it. But a couple of things that are clearly true it’s time we face.
First, Al Qaeda is helped by this war – of that our own intelligence agrees with almost wihtout reservation.
Second, our departure will make Bin Laden look prophetic – that’s bad – but it’s also something we should have thought long and hard about before we went in. We were clearly unprepared for this fight in the manner it was given to us.
Third, if we leave, there is NO chance that Iraq will become a haven for Wahabi extremism (i.e. Al Qaeda) – it is time the administration started playing straight on that.
Fourth, it’s possible it will become a satallite of Iran – but honestly, Iran HASN’T been overly imperialistic or aggressvie, except against Israel.
So, in the final analysis – are we there, do we stay, to act as shield for Israel, because we surely aren’t shielding ourselves. We have bigger fish to fry in Afghanistan, and probably covertly in Pakistan (and maybe even Saudi Arabia). I say “no” we don’t stay. Isreal, in the final analysis, MUST begin preparing a map in the middle-east which is sustainable for 50 years, not just 5. Having us act as their shield will fail, we will not stay 20 years, let alone 50.
“but honestly, Iran HASN’T been overly imperialistic or aggressvie, except against Israel.”
Hezbollah’s Beirut Barracks bombing in 1983 killed 241 American serviceman. Maybe, peev, you’d like to change that sentence to begin “but dishonestly . . .”
Iran HASN’T been overly imperialistic or aggressvie,
Lebanon might tend to disagree.
except against Israel.”
Ah. Well, it’s OK then.
Peev,
You drop 14 tendentious paragraphs on this post, and on another you chide Mitch for verbosity? Isn’t it about time you got your own blog? You could call it “Shot In the Peev” or maybe “Peev in the Dark” or something. Either would work pretty well.
If Iran’s efforts to control the lebanese government by assassinations and bombings isn’t imperialism I guess the US is free to determine the way that Mexico and Canada are run that way is okay, too.
“”What would you have done differently in the GWOT? Not that I think it has been fought without mistakes.””
Monday Morning QB is a bit tricky, but there is one thing that My good friend the Doctor (Right leaning moderate, Bush supporting) has always said from the beginning, and I tend to agree. We should have never disbanded their Army or the local security force. Huge mistake. We could have just as easily decapitated their line of command and inserted Muslim Friendlies in their place or some other command structure.
Monday Morning QB is a bit tricky whole heartedly agree.
We should have never disbanded their Army I’ve heard that many times, but I don’t know how that would have worked out. Their army wasn’t all that reliable or well-trained. Certainly they were no fighting force, and were probably as corupt at the bottom as they were at the top.
My criticism might be at the extremely low levels of troops in the intial invasion. But even in that case, maybe we could have ended this years ago, but maybe instead of 4000 dead it would have been 14,000.
There is only one set of decisions that got us to where we are today. All other paths are just speculation.
Another topic to discuss with my old friend. Mitch, I’ll see if I can get him to comment here if you don’t mind.
“We should have never disbanded their Army or the local security force. Huge mistake.”
Tricky business, occupation. I can see both sides of this. The Iraqi army of 2003 could not have been used for anything but an instrument of terror. The troops were conscripts and the officers were promoted on the basis of their loyalty to the Ba’ath party and Sadam. I may be wrong, but I believe that the conscripts were only given weapons during drills or just before battle — out of fear that they would desert and sell them. What can you do with an army like that? What would be the difference between trying to make slave labor gangs rebuild infrastructure and making Sadam’s conscripts rebuild infrastructure?
On the other hand Bush & co seemed to have no idea what they should do with the Iraqi army one way or another, and disbanded them out of a wish that they would just go away.
I guess we’re lucky that only five or ten percent of them have become terrorists.
Master, you really think that if we went in with a larger force that we would have taken 10,000 more fatalities? The surge did not result in an increase in American casualties, did it?
The whole point of a large enough force is that you can use it to establish order and prevent the kind of unravelling that happened after the invasion. We went in without enough troops to secure weapon sites. It took too many years for this administration to finally accept that they needed to put more boots on the ground. And to fire Rumsfeld’s ass.
“Master, you really think that if we went in with a larger force that we would have taken 10,000 more fatalities? ”
No, I don’t. I guess I didn’t make my point very well. I was trying to make the point that we don’t know what would have happened if we had made different decisions. You end up comparing reality to speculation and speculation always wins.
Sorry, sounds trite, but I’m tired.
Hezzbollah apparently now is simply an extension of the Iranian Government.. or wait, is it the Syrian Government.. or..
And Iran engages in assassination in Lebanon – or again, maybe that’s Syria.. funny how that assassination turned out to be to the advanatage of the US and Israel..and since there is essentially no evidence of who assassintated the former Lebanese Presdient, your guess is worth no more (or less) than mine.
Master- I concur – there is no way to argue against speculation – for example, the speculation that had we not left Vietnam – the killing fields of Cambodia wouldn’t have happened, or, that our departure directly caused them. Predicting the future (of the past) based on changes in action is pretty dicey stuff at best.
Yet- here again is an example of Mitch (et.al.) chosing to pointilisitcally focus on one comment – rather than actually engage in a more robust discussion. My supposition, is that they know full well the childish and shallow nature of “pro-surrender” language doesn’t hold up under discussion, so, solution=duck the discussion.
I put the question then to you (all) – what evidence exists that our remaining in Iraq will eventually lead anywhere meaningful – I suppose more directly, why is that substantially more likely than a Yugoslavia scenario? The benefits of more troops can easily be attributed to balkanization as they can more troops, and no progress is being made. So, I ask again, define what makes this substantially different than a host of other tribal/religious/race wars of the past 100 plus years?
And finally, to deal with the childish replies of Mitch (and others).. if you feel Iran has been imperialistic outside of it’s actions toward Isreal (and as a result, Lebanon, which I never denied, but I think you’d have to admit is essentially a side effect of it’s actions toward Isreal) – well, if you believe that – then why engage in a war in Iraq almost CERTAIN to result in an emboldening of Iran? We cannot possibly take on Iran while in Iraq, Admiral Fallon quit over just that point – and me, I trust the generals/admirals, not GWB – you SAY you do too.
Beyond all that of course is the fact that you ducked the fundamental problem (again) – which is that Isreal has to consider it’s future 50 years out. Using our military like a club may seem like fun and may satisfy your inner testosterone – but it is NOT a long term solution. If you don’t believe me, examine the experience of the British in the Punjab/Afghanistan/Pakistan in the mid and late 1800’s. They were the pre-eminent military power on the planet. They ultimately lost control, and lost the fight, quite simply because the local population had ZERO interest in their continuing presence. The locals also had internal strife the British simply were totally ill-equiped to solve.
BTW – Flash, I agree almost 100% with your assessment – but I’d add that I think the hubris and arrogance of the administration meant they ONLY saw the most rosey of scenarios, and beat down any dissent.. which, as they say, is no way to run an airline. They only saw the failure when they failed at the polls.
We should have never disbanded their Army or the local security force. Huge mistake.
I think that depends very strongly on what we’re trying to accomplish in Iraq. If all we wanted to do was remove Saddam, then you’re right, it was a mistake. If what you want was to attempt to plant a democracy and transform the region, which seems to have been a key aim early in the invasion, then it was not a mistake. As you well know, the armed forces in the US don’t tolerate corruption all that well and respect civilian authority. Without those two characteristics, the armed forces would be a destabilizing force in society, constantly threatening coups. The armed forces in Iraq were notoriously poorly trained and cruelly run by what passed for the officers and non-comms.
So, are we trying to win the battle but not the war? Are we trying for shorter term “success” in Iraq or longer term transformation? I am curious how long term you think we should be trying for in the Iraq theater of the GWoT.
And yes, I think Bush botched much of the strategy in Iraq. He clearly needed to strongly push local security before any kind of political and societal progress was possible.
Nerd, that’s true (that we didn’t want a corrupt military) but the problems it created of massive numbers of armed, unemployed civilians with little way to make money, were enormous. Secondly, the army that has been stood up since, is no less corrupt. Much of it is under the influence of the Shiite hegemony.
That chaos – following the ouster of Saddam – and the rampant unemployment that followed the disbanding of the Iraqi Army AND the equally poor decision to essentially use contractors to ‘rebuild’ Iraq, rather than Iraqis, is/was, as much as anything, the genesis of the insurgency – NOT any preference for Al Qaeda. So, to me, we won the short term battle of getting rid of the Iraqi Army’s corruption, only to lose the war to the insurgency it helped to start, and which we were ill aware of our role in creating.
I challenge, fundamentally, that Iraq has anything at all to do with fighting terrorism which we did not create – so your third paragraph to me is built on a false premise.
I think your last paragraph is correct, but from a different perspective. NO military peace is possible without political and economic stability. It’s not military stability and THEN political, because you never get the military peace WITHOUT the political. Bush needed to grasp that you cannot privatize the entire educational/construction/planning employment mechanism in Iraq – which was up until then public – without creating massive resentment. He cavallierly decided that paying big dollars out to private contractors (because his whole crowd believes in that whole public/private profit spiggot) was the right way, when it was most certainly NOT the right way.
But, the fundamental question is, are we gaining sufficient benefit from our continuing presence? I think the answer is most clearly ‘no’, we are merely putting off a comeupance (sic) that is going to occur whether we stay 1 more day, 1 more year, or 1 more century. I think Bush knows that, but he and his band desire a permanent presence there, even thought the Iraqis DON’T want that, and so they are unwilling to even consider withdrawal.
The ‘surge’ such as it is, provided some considerable local stability- combined with balkanization – but there has been no further movement on what the surge was supposed to enable, and we have NO capacity to coerce such movement. Namely, we can’t make the Shiites give up power to the Sunnis – they know they hold the cards – and they are merely waiting for us to leave which they are ADAMANT we do. At some point, and as we’ve seen with Al Sadr, sooner rather than later, they’ll lose patience with us, and the ‘insurgency’ will increase in tempo, regardless of our surge. We’ve solved for AQI, a rather simple problem, for the most part – the hard part hasn’t improved, and our presence makes the prospects of improvement no better, and probably worse.
BTW- by ‘terrorism we did not create’ my point isn’t to blame the US for AQ, but rather, for AQI, which didn’t exist prior to our presence in Iraq. AQ as a whole is larger and stronger due to Iraq, not the other way around. I don’t blame the US for terrorism, but AQI wasn’t in existence prior to March 2003, so it represents an anomoly that in large measure exists entirely outside of the larger ‘War on Terrrrrrrrrrr’.
Peev wrote:
and:
And a few comments later wrote:
Peev, even you must be able to see why the only commenter at SITD who takes your arguments seriously is a clown.