Reid: Someone Tell Bush the War in Iraq is Lost

[Apeman81]

FOXNews.com - Reid: Someone Tell Bush the War in Iraq is Lost - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum.

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday said the war in Iraq is lost militarily and "can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically" after more than four years of fighting. "Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows: that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters.

Hold back funding as you speak thusly.

Now that's how to support the troops in the field!

[Slevin57]

"The War is lost"

That's a very simple phrase. I wonder if Senator Reid has stopped to consider what that's conceding to?

The war is lost, millions of Iraqi's will be left to fend on their own.

The war is lost, 3400+ troops died in vain, their mission was never accomplished.

The war is lost, our diplomatic reputation in the middle east will be non-existent. We will be even more untrusted then we already are.

Can we really afford to loose this war?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Slevin57 "The War is lost" That's a very simple phrase. I wonder if Senator Reid has stopped to consider what that's conceding to? The war is lost, millions of Iraqi's will be left to fend on their own. The war is lost, 3400+ troops died in vain, their mission was never accomplished. The war is lost, our diplomatic reputation in the middle east will be non-existent. We will be even more untrusted then we already are. Can we really afford to loose this war?

I thought the war was already won. Aren't we involved in reconstruction efforts? How can this still be considered a war? Do we even have military goals in Iraq any more?

It was my understanding that we are more involved in the construction of a democratic government; I cannot for the life of me imagine how that can be done at the point of a knife. If the funding is cut to the soldiers, then they will come home; if our mission is ever to be accomplished (assuming that mission is, as I said, the creation of a democratic government) then the soldiers will have to come home at some point. Why not in the next two years? Why the hell not? What is the three-year objective that requires a military presence? Somebody please explain that to me.

[Slevin57]

It's been said a million times. You cannot set a PUBLIC time table.

It's quite possible that if we annouced a public time table for withdrawl, violence would quell, the democrats would be cheering. After we left, the various militant groups, that used the down time to train more forces, would make a huge display of violence pushing the country into their control.

Also, we would not be doing this "at the point of a knife", if there weren't people blowing us up left and right now would we.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Slevin57 It's been said a million times. You cannot set a PUBLIC time table. It's quite possible that if we annouced a public time table for withdrawl, violence would quell, the democrats would be cheering. After we left, the various militant groups, that used the down time to train more forces, would make a huge display of violence pushing the country into their control. Also, we would not be doing this "at the point of a knife", if there weren't people blowing us up left and right now would we.

Yup, it's been said a million times -- and every single damn time, it's a crock of manure. The militants can wait until our troops are pulled out on our secret timetable, and still do exactly what you described. So our options are, pull out and then deal with what happens -- or stay in Iraq forever and ever.

Tell me why, after the troops were pulled out and these undetectable and remarkably well organized militant groups went nuts and killed everyone, we could not go back in. Maybe after the Iraqi government asked for our help? You know, so we could act like an ally instead of a conqueror?

The fact that people are blowing us up left and right shows why this cannot be done at the point of a knife. They will never stop fighting, because they are fighting for the freedom that we are taking away. Would you stop?

[Jack]

The war is lost, millions of Iraqi's will be left to fend on their own.

As they will have to whenever we leave, unless the U.S. plans on installing permanent bases there.

The war is lost, 3400+ troops died in vain, their mission was never accomplished.

Since no coherent policy was ever put forth prior to the invasion, it could be said not only did they die in vain, but all who are yet to die for whatever reason we're still there will die in vain as well. What mission do we need to accomplish to reverse that concept?

We will be even more untrusted then we already are.

It's not being untrustworthy that has damaged our image abroad. It's our aggressive actions into a land that doesn't appreciate our intrusion and hatred for our Western decadence that makes us unacceptable to many in the Middle East.

Can we really afford to loose this war?

Can we afford, in both lives and money, to win this war? And what exactly will it take to win? Without a plan, how will we know when we've won-or lost, for that matter?

[Wraith]

It's my understanding that we went to Iraq to stop terrorists. How did it become this?

[Zeebadee]

Support the troops!! Keep the war going for their benefit!!

[bishop]

the vast majority of the documentaries i've seen (most conducted by pbs) seem to portray the soldiers as mere pawns in this debacle.. they aren't really sure what they're supposed to do other than play policeman because the iraqis are incapable of doing it themselves.

the republicans talk high and mighty about supporting the troops.. zee, you said it right - they think that these endless, pointless extended tours of duty is their way to support the troops. not to mention sending them up and down the ied highways in inadequate humvees.

someone doesn't just need to tell bush that the war is lost - someone needs to tell everyone in congress... and hopefully once that sinks into their heads, they'll actually cut off the funding - supporting the troops in their mission to return home where they belong.

Quote by: ish Can we afford, in both lives and money, to win this war? And what exactly will it take to win? Without a plan, how will we know when we've won-or lost, for that matter?

excellent questions, and undoubtedly questions that none of the war's supporters can answer. if you were to ask cheney a couple years ago, he would've said that the insurgency was in its last throes.. recently mccain just said that you could take a sunday stroll down baghdad without having to wear any body armor... reality left the building over 6 years ago.

[shawmutt]

Extending a 12 month tour of duty to 15 months is also an excellent way to support our troops. (story) I can't imagine being thrust an a foreign place, where people want to kill me, away from my family for over a year. Most have been on more than one tour of duty. Meanwhile, people back home are debating whether to go with plasma or lcd, and pretty much carrying on our lives on like nothing is different. We owe our soldiers more than endless quagmire, even if it means the terrorists "bring the fight here".

I hope, beyond all hope, that this debacle will make those in power think a little clearer before exercising that power in the future.

Probably not.

[bishop]

reid, in addition to virtually all politicians from both parties, has a strong record of actively flapping his lips while supporting the war through his votes.. with campaign season going on, i highly doubt we'll see any change in policy - despite the democrats' constant babble about how the voters made a decision this past november.

the dems have been in office long enough now, with little to show for it on this issue. the republicans have been in office even longer, with nothing but abject failure to show for it.

[rmnunez]

I don’t think things are so bad, if the surge actually isn’t working, this would be just a battle, other schemes might do better, there are more formidable weapons available, the Kurds, Iran, Syria or others could be brought into the exercise. I think it’s a generally unfavourable situation, but dynamic enough to make it unpredictable and too early to say the war is lost.

There is a conflict and it has elements of an insurgency, civil war, ethnic purge, foreign terrorism and regional proxies, the united statians are caught in the middle, thanks to Bush’s excesses. If the goal is peace, that’s not going to be the outcome of withdrawal as those motivated to use violence by foreign presence will simply apply their skills to the other factions.

I'd figure this Senator has to be Pelosi's boss, does his foreign policy regarding Iraq seamlessly fit with Pelosi's, and if not, to what degree does she need to conform to fit his? Has Mr. Reif mentioned anything about Ms Pelosi's Syrian sojourn?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: shawmutt We owe our soldiers more than endless quagmire, even if it means the terrorists "bring the fight here".

Like the specious WMD argument, the phrase "better to fight the radical Islamics over htere than to do it here" has been used to justify this asinine war. yet while bush has been fighting them there, his policies have also been to allow more of them to come here, legally.

"In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent United States residents — nearly 96,000 — than in any year in the previous two decades."
More Muslims Arrive in U.S., After 9/11 Dip - New York Times

Quote by: shawmutt I hope, beyond all hope, that this debacle will make those in power think a little clearer before exercising that power in the future. Probably not.

Those in power had an excellent example already - Vietnam. They chose to ignore it.

Quote by: bishop the dems have been in office long enough now, with little to show for it on this issue. the republicans have been in office even longer, with nothing but abject failure to show for it.

We desperately need a political or negotiated end to the war to have any possibility of saving enough face to maintain any shred of credibility. What makes Iraq worse than even Vietnam is that in Nam we had an organized opponent that could make such negotiations. We can't negotiate in Iraq because we have no idea who has the strength to effectively control the country. We don't have a credible, effective opponent to even negotiate with. About the only thing we can do is to continue to try and moderate the bloodshed until the Iraqi's can organize some sort, ANY sort, of government, no matter who runs it, that we can turn things over to. Maliki clearly isn't the guy.

[Slevin57]

Perhaps CNN should not be privy to our strategic military plans?

Whenever Bush does outline the plans, people go watch CNN for the abbreviated version, while terrorist groups are out printing copies and distributing it to study.

We have to let our military do it's job and stop thinking that we should be able to help rebuild an entire country in what we deem an appropriate time frame.

It may take 20 more years before Iraq is stable. Will we need to have 240,000 troops plus the 120 thousand some odd contractors there? No.

But if we pull out now, things can only get worse. Which is something people like Senator Reid keep glancing over. This is not a plan to make things better, this is a plan that will make things worse.

Am I the only person here that remembers Vietnam? The entire southern part of the country fell very quickly.

I see no reason why the violence that is concentrated in central Iraq would not quickly overtake the country in the north and south if we left.

I am not a "stay the course" person, but I do want the military to have the amount of troops it needs to control the situation.

Compared to the amount of troops we have lost in other wars vs the length of time, we are not doing bad. Vietnam alone we lost about 58,000 troops.

This war is no longer about winning or loosing, It's not about terrorists and it's not about the president. It's about giving the Iraqi's a chance.

We came in and tore up their country, they did not want us there. Now we have a responsibility to stay and clean up the mess we made.

Leaving sends the wrong signal. It sends the signal to oppressed people around the world that no one, not even a super power, will help them.

And as we sit here, with full freedom of speech, the ability to walk down the street safely....to go to work and to go to school safely; Who are we to say it's time to leave.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Slevin57 Perhaps CNN should not be privy to our strategic military plans? Whenever Bush does outline the plans, people go watch CNN for the abbreviated version, while terrorist groups are out printing copies and distributing it to study.

And then what? You outlined this plan before, in which militant groups will wait patiently and build strength until we are gone, and then they will attack. As I asked above, is there any reason why they wouldn 't do this after we left years from now, "when the job was done?"

Quote by: Slevin57 We have to let our military do it's job and stop thinking that we should be able to help rebuild an entire country in what we deem an appropriate time frame.

What exactly is the military's job in Iraq at this point? It isn't building the nation, because that isn't being done militarily. So why do we need 240,000 troops there?

Quote by: Slevin57 It may take 20 more years before Iraq is stable. Will we need to have 240,000 troops plus the 120 thousand some odd contractors there? No. But if we pull out now, things can only get worse. Which is something people like Senator Reid keep glancing over. This is not a plan to make things better, this is a plan that will make things worse. Am I the only person here that remembers Vietnam? The entire southern part of the country fell very quickly.

You may remember Vietnam, but clearly you don't remember Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine, and the Crusades. I don't believe it is fair to characterize all of the people of the Middle East by the example of the extremists in their midst, but I think it is pretty clear that the grudges that said extremists hold never go away. Never. Not next year, not twenty years from now -- never. So there is no way that we are going to build peace between warring factions at the point of a knife. There is no way we are going to make people accept us as their savior and provider. It simply isn't going to happen. Most of the American people have accepted that by now; why hasn't Bush? Why haven't you?

Quote by: Slevin57 I see no reason why the violence that is concentrated in central Iraq would not quickly overtake the country in the north and south if we left. I am not a "stay the course" person, but I do want the military to have the amount of troops it needs to control the situation. Compared to the amount of troops we have lost in other wars vs the length of time, we are not doing bad. Vietnam alone we lost about 58,000 troops.

First, we aren't controlling the situation now, as the recent bombings should make abundantly clear; and second, the idea that this war isn't so bad because it's only killed more soldiers than the attacks on 9/11, but not as many as died in Vietnam, is too absurd to countenance. When lives are wasted to no good purpose, the fact that we could have wasted more lives doesn't make the lives already lost insignificant.

Quote by: Slevin57 This war is no longer about winning or loosing, It's not about terrorists and it's not about the president. It's about giving the Iraqi's a chance. We came in and tore up their country, they did not want us there. Now we have a responsibility to stay and clean up the mess we made.

Maybe so, but not with troops. Not at the point of a knife. Can you explain to me why that is a good idea? If you punch a guy in the face and he falls down, and you then hold out a hand to pick him back up, if he refuses that hand should you stick a gun in his face and snarl, "LET ME HELP YOU!"

If it's absurd in that example, how does it make sense in Iraq?

Quote by: Slevin57 Leaving sends the wrong signal. It sends the signal to oppressed people around the world that no one, not even a super power, will help them. And as we sit here, with full freedom of speech, the ability to walk down the street safely....to go to work and to go to school safely; Who are we to say it's time to leave.

It sends the message that we actually don't believe that our might gives us the right to dictate how other people live. It sends the message that the world's superpower will not continue to build an empire using our military supremacy. It sends the message that we have at least a fractional amount of respect for the people who live in Iraq, who very clearly do not want us there as a military presence. Remember them? The people that we bombed, that we killed, whose country we destroyed, and who are still dying from violence and from a lack of basic necessities. Who are you to tell them that we should stay in their country?


This is not a war, it is an occupation. It is not nation building, it is colonization. Whatever we can do for Iraq with our military, we have done. We need to find another way to accomplish whatever else we feel is right and good. The troops need to come home.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Zeebadee Like the specious WMD argument, the phrase "better to fight the radical Islamics over htere than to do it here" has been used to justify this asinine war. yet while bush has been fighting them there, his policies have also been to allow more of them to come here, legally. "In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent United States residents — nearly 96,000 — than in any year in the previous two decades." More Muslims Arrive in U.S., After 9/11 Dip - New York Times Those in power had an excellent example already - Vietnam. They chose to ignore it. We desperately need a political or negotiated end to the war to have any possibility of saving enough face to maintain any shred of credibility. What makes Iraq worse than even Vietnam is that in Nam we had an organized opponent that could make such negotiations. We can't negotiate in Iraq because we have no idea who has the strength to effectively control the country. We don't have a credible, effective opponent to even negotiate with. About the only thing we can do is to continue to try and moderate the bloodshed until the Iraqi's can organize some sort, ANY sort, of government, no matter who runs it, that we can turn things over to. Maliki clearly isn't the guy.

Funny you mention Viet Nam. For it is just such a scenario that Harry Reid is striving for by denying funding and comforting the enemy with such irresponsible talk.

The Vietnamese took similar efforts by congress to heart in the 70's and simply waited for the U.S. to capitulate. What followed during the ruthless occupation by the northern aggressors gave birth to the term "Killing Fields".

But I'm sure that means little to you. To you, it was not the reckless abandonment on the South Vietnamese that lead to this, but the decision to defend them at all. After all, had the U.S. simply stood back and allowed the North to invade the South, it surely would have been a civil and bloodless "re-indoctrination", no?

I’m sure the “insurgents” will be no less considerate of the elected government and its Iraqi supporters should Harry and the clan get their way.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Isherwood As they will have to whenever we leave, unless the U.S. plans on installing permanent bases there.

Which is just what we're doing.

14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq Long-term military presence planned In-Depth Coverage By Christine Spolar From the ashes of abandoned Iraqi army bases, U.S. military engineers are overseeing the building of an enhanced system of American bases designed to last for years. Last year, as troops poured over the Kuwait border to invade Iraq, the U.S. military set up at least 120 forward operating bases. Then came hundreds of expeditionary and temporary bases that were to last between six months and a year for tactical operations while providing soldiers with such comforts as e-mail and Internet access. Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years. The bases also would be key outposts for Bush administration policy advisers.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint And then what? You outlined this plan before, in which militant groups will wait patiently and build strength until we are gone, and then they will attack. As I asked above, is there any reason why they wouldn 't do this after we left years from now, "when the job was done?"

Well, since they're slaughtering each other NOW, it kind of puts the lie to them "laying low" until we leave, don't it?
It seems like just another of the prevaricator-in-chief's talking points. Like leaving will "embolden" them, when they're pretty damned bold NOW.
These are just words. Rallying points for the faithful.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Well, since they're slaughtering each other NOW, it kind of puts the lie to them "laying low" until we leave, don't it? It seems like just another of the prevaricator-in-chief's talking points. Like leaving will "embolden" them, when they're pretty damned bold NOW. These are just words. Rallying points for the faithful.

An even better point.
Thanks, Scribbler. And thanks for making me want to puke my guts out with the info on the permanent bases. Wait until the job is done, indeed. Pfah.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Slevin Can we really afford to loose this war?

No, we can't afford it, which is why this is so tragic. We lost this war the minute the Bush League invaded Iraq. It was a bad, bad decision, made against the best advice of Boy George's senior military, his intelligence services and his own father.

Believing that we support our troops by continuing throw resources at a lost cause, in some desperate effort to save international face and this administration's legacy, is cynicism at it's worst.

Is it gonna be bad for the U.S. if we withdraw now? Yep, it's gonna suck. But there's no salvaging a train wreck. Withdraw now or ten years from now, it's gonna suck either way. Might as well fold a losing hand, take our lumps and start repairing the damage now, rather than letting the damage accumulate and make our situation even more painful.

Quote by: Slevin The war is lost, 3400+ troops died in vain, their mission was never accomplished.

Quite impossible. Our troops died serving their country and serving each other, which will never be in vain. It's the criminally negligent policies of this administration that were in vain.

Quote by: Apeman The Vietnamese took similar efforts by congress to heart in the 70's and simply waited for the U.S. to capitulate.

That was some pretty impressive "simply waiting", Apeman. A war that lasted over twice the length of our participation WWII, with over a million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong dead to our 54,000.

The same thing the Afghanis did against the Soviets... "simply waiting" almost 10 years, while losing over a million lives to the Soviets 15,000.

They're willing to do it whatever it takes, which is why we lost this war the day we invaded.

.