Ex-Commander Says Iraq Effort Is ‘a Nightmare’

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Sonart . Rainbow, why dont you state clearly what your argument is, because I haven't the foggiest idea what these enigmatic responses mean.

By overvaluing O.bin-Laden's strategic ability, you omit the real several factors U.S. entered Iraq for.
I do not state O.bin-Laden is a moron. However, he is not that "telented and/or gifted" as you suggest. His actions were (partially) supported by Russian intelligence in order to evade U.S. surveillance, so tracking him was not easy to be accomplished (even prior 09-11).
Debating the reasons U.S. eneterd Iraq - through the prism of years passed, is a very lucrative post an observer may take from.
"I wish I did", etc. tactic serves historians, mostly, then using it as an argument seals its destination as well, leading any debate to nowhere.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval Again, you're missing the point. At the time, the threat posed by an alternate outcome to these wars was considered worse than doing nothing.

Again, some politician touting "a better outcome" is not much of an argument. Politicians make all kinds of proclamations, and it should not be good enough to take them at their word.

That's the big point you're missing. I know your point, which is to just blindly follow along with whatever a President says.

As for Saudi Arabia, we should not support such a tyrannical system, or any other states, for that matter.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

You make a number of totally absurd assumptions here, which I will address in turn.

Quote by: BugsBunny07 Be fair: Name a justice system in recorded history that was perfect and flawless in every way, to all standards of all people. I won't be holding my breath for this one...

First, you assume I was being unfair by pointing out how systems are flawed, rather than examining how the flawed systems are unfair. In fact, it's because I'm somewhat fair, considerate, and
undogmatic that I'm critical of so-called "justice" systems set up in Iraq and elsewhere.
Because there are no perfect systems, we have every reason to be highly skeptical of them.
It's never been my intent to show otherwise.

Quote by: BugsBunny07 You goofed, quit trying to weasle.

Again, I only partially made a mistake.
But it was a simple mistake (I typed the wrong company name), but it wasn't even entirely incorrect, seeing as to how the two companies operate in Iraq under the same contract.

Quote by: BugsBunny07 War is part of human existence. Its what people do. That is reality. Some people run, some protest, some participate (either starting shit, or defending), some exploit. Everyone is wired to do one of those things. I happen to be predisposed to participate. You can think whatever you want about people like me, you have that freedom, but remember that you have people like me to thank for it.

Here you make a lot of assumptions that are patently absurd. First of all, the argument that "war is a part of human existence so it's okay" is a cop out argument, and serves well to justify any sadistic act imaginable. The fact that war hangs over us only shows the need to absolish state governments and abandon twisted things like nationalism, citizenship, and hierarchical systems in general.

But the most absurd assumption you make is the delusion that war allows me freedom of speech. The military restricts freedom of speech, and innumerable other freedoms. The only freedom you represent to me is the freedom to obey, the freedom to destroy others and the freedom to function like a machine for the machine. Therefore, I'm not thanking you for anything.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa Again, some politician touting "a better outcome" is not much of an argument.

Please prove your assertion that it was a singular politician that decided the US course of action in these events.

Quote by: grandpa Politicians make all kinds of proclamations, and it should not be good enough to take them at their word.

You're right, they do make all kinds of proclamations....if they say they can turn the sky yellow and the water maroon, you should be very wary of them. If they say that support for Iraq durring the Iran/Iraq war is better for the world because the crazy theocracy in Iran winning this war will cause all sorts of problems around the globe, well, you might want to pay attention.

[rmnunez]

the most absurd assumption you make is the delusion that war allows me freedom of speech.

Well it does.

War by US armed forces (here in Iraq) has always been to advance freedoms, particularly of speech. Its hard to find satisfaction in the level of freedom Iraqis on average now enjoy, but haven't you heard, there's a war going on!?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Well it does. War by US armed forces (here in Iraq) has always been to advance freedoms, particularly of speech. Its hard to find satisfaction in the level of freedom Iraqis on average now enjoy, but haven't you heard, there's a war going on!?

HA ha ha ha.... That was a good one. bush invaded Iraq to bring them freedom of speech!!!. LOL, lol.

What's gonna be next?? bush invaded because saddam wasn't watering the roses in one of his gardens correctly????

[thx1138]

War by US armed forces (here in Iraq) has always been to advance freedoms, particularly of speech. Its hard to find satisfaction in the level of freedom Iraqis on average now enjoy, but haven't you heard, there's a war going on!?

Wow, that's really great. So, if the Iraqis have freedom to speak but not freedom to boot the U.S. out of the country, what good is it?

Unless another puppet is installed the Iraqi people will not support the U.S. as a host country this is not Germany or Japan.

[rmnunez]

if the Iraqis have freedom to speak but not freedom to boot the U.S. out of the country, what good is it?

There are lots of different freedoms and they can be exercised in varying degrees. Freedom of expression enables political freedoms like freedom of assembly. Iraq will need to gain the appropriate level of freedoms, but these have to be granted by their own government which should be enforcing the laws. Its something that will have to emerge gradually and over time. Right now the local government can hardly field a police force, whatever freedoms they are capable of enforcing are limited.

Unless another puppet is installed the Iraqi people will not support the U.S. as a host country this is not Germany or Japan.

I don't think the Iraqis are more ferocious than Germans or Japanese in WW2. Muslims generally seem to be poor fighters, better at this terrorist/insurgency stuff than much else.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval Please prove your assertion that it was a singular politician that decided the US course of action in these events.

Well, my point wasn't about the number of politicians making a claim, only that we hsouldn't just go along with what a politician says.

Quote by: Dieval You're right, they do make all kinds of proclamations....

Indeed, and we can't just take them on their word, whatever the subject.
You have a hard time understanding this, apparently, even to the point of failing to understand my criticism of US support for Saddam Hussein in a war that devastated both countries and didn't improve a damn thing, at least for your average person.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez Well it does. War by US armed forces (here in Iraq) has always been to advance freedoms, particularly of speech.

Cna you prove the military assures my freedom of speech in any way whatsoever? Just saying it does will not prove it to me. I'm being more than fair here.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez There are lots of different freedoms and they can be exercised in varying degrees. Freedom of expression enables political freedoms like freedom of assembly.

So killing campaigns give people freedom of speech, freedom of choice in occupation, freedom of religion, etc? Again, you need to prove such an absurd claim.

War does provide some level of freedom, primarily the freedom to obey and freedom from mortal, earthly bonds. It's also the freedom to goosestep and wave around pieces of fabric, the freedom to listen to some idiotic, glossy-eyed politician spew empty promises. If that's freedom, then consider me the opposite--consider me a slave, please.

Grandpa h.

[Lord Leinad]

In my most humble opinion, we should have never gone into Iraq in the first place. How did this extend American power across the world? It didn't. It is a siphon, a place where our men die for a war which does not benefit our nation.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Lord Leinad How did this extend American power across the world? It didn't.

By "extend American power" do you mean that we are showing our strength or that we're doing this to annex Iraq as one of our territories?

Quote by: Lord Leinad It is a siphon, a place where our men die for a war which does not benefit our nation.

A democratic allied country in the heart of the Middle East, which replaced a brutal dictatorship that was completely unfriend to us, is not a benefit to our nation? Please elaborate.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Dieval By "extend American power" do you mean that we are showing our strength or that we're doing this to annex Iraq as one of our territories?

Who needs to annex territory. Based on Bush's original plan, Iraq would have a puppet regime, completely amenable to U.S. interests, and with a significiant force of U.S. troops garrisoned at 14 U.S. military bases.

Quote by: Dieval A democratic allied country in the heart of the Middle East, which replaced a brutal dictatorship that was completely unfriend to us, is not a benefit to our nation? Please elaborate.

A nice pipe dream, which has worked out SOOoo well.

.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Sonart . Who needs to annex territory. Based on Bush's original plan, Iraq would have a puppet regime, completely amenable to U.S. interests, and with a significiant force of U.S. troops garrisoned at 14 U.S. military bases.

I was asking for clarity.

Quote by: Sonart A nice pipe dream, which has worked out SOOoo well. .

I never expected it to happen over night, as some would like to see, and as we are still there, fighting to acheive that goal one can not say with any certainty that it is a "pipe dream". Let also note that doing nothing there was working out "SOOoo well" too... Containment and sanctions had all failed.

[rmnunez]

Extending united statian power in this region in particular, had become very necessary. Things had degenerated a bit at the end of the Cold War. Presidential cowboyism as the emerging Lone Ranger on the world's stage, left a lot to be desired, and then they got slapped down with 911.

At this juncture all analysts coincide, there was a paradigm shift, a watershed of sorts which emphasized security. In this new mindset, international relations, decisions to intervene, military attacks and diplomatic pronouncements are made.

The focus on terrorism now, taking into account the notorious Islamic source and Cold War record of past US relations with the region, called for intervention.

Whether Iraq 'deserved' to be invaded is another matter, it seems like a 'close' call. The WMDs didn't materialize, the human rights atrocities and genocide have not justified this sort of thing before, the Coalition had plenty of detractors, the enforcement argument fails with ongoing inspections. Individually none of Saddam's bad marks merited his expulsion, but all of them together made him the worst in the area and the best location for a multi-generational military deployment.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Rainbow By overvaluing O.bin-Laden's strategic ability, you omit the real several factors U.S. entered Iraq for.

Number one, Rainbow, I don't think bin Laden was trying to provoke us into attacking Iraq. We did that for our own purposes... it just played perfectly into al-Qaeda's scheme by embedding us even deeper into a Mideast quagmire, but now defending ourselves on two fronts. I suspect he only intended for us, as the Soviets before us, to invade and occupy Afghanistan, where upon they could repeat their previous glorious victory over the evil occupiers.

No, I've always maintained that we invaded Afghanistan - which I supported, by the way - because of bin Laden, but we invaded Iraq as a Neo-Con demonstration of our post-Cold War super power, with the goal of ridding ourselves of an irritating nuisance while simultaneously intimidating the rest of the Muslim Mideast into submission and the returning to the peaceful production of cheap oil.

But like I said, it was a really stupid idea that played right into al-Qaeda's hands.

Quote by: Rainbow I do not state O.bin-Laden is a moron. However, he is not that "telented and/or gifted" as you suggest. His actions were (partially) supported by Russian intelligence in order to evade U.S. surveillance, so tracking him was not easy to be accomplished (even prior 09-11).

That doesn't sound cunning to you? The mujahadeen used OUR aid to defeat the Soviets, and then turn around and use RUSSIA'S aid to defeat us. That's not only cunning, it's downright poetic.

Quote by: Rainbow Debating the reasons U.S. eneterd Iraq - through the prism of years passed, is a very lucrative post an observer may take from. "I wish I did", etc. tactic serves historians, mostly, then using it as an argument seals its destination as well, leading any debate to nowhere.

Leading to nowhere only if you support the losing side. History is what it is, and the war in Iraq has been what it is... a giant clusterfuque, started for reasons that didn't exist, misled and mishandled in every way possible, at huge expense in blood, treasure and international respect, and from which we may just manage to extricate ourselves with some semblance of face... although I doubt it.

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Dieval I never expected it to happen over night, as some would like to see...

Meaning the folks who started the war. Cheney had us coming home by Christmas of '03, cuz there wouldn't be any resistance. Ooops. And they led the rest of America to believe that, so apparently you were the only one who, before the invasion, 'never expected it to happen over night'.

Quote by: Dieval and as we are still there, fighting to achieve that goal one can not say with any certainty that it is a "pipe dream".

Since the original goal, as clearly, eloquently and repeatedly stated by Boy George, Cheney, Powell and Condoleeza, was to rid Iraq of WMD. And THAT clearly was a pipe dream. Any other "goals" were simply dreamed up to cover their asses when no WMD turned up, and are not much closer to being realized than finding those WMD.

Quote by: rmnunez Extending united statian power in this region in particular, had become very necessary.

Necessary only in our own economic self interest, and even then not really 'necessary'... merely convenient. With a bit more 'visionary' leadership, we could wean ourselves from Mideast oil... then they could all blow each other to kingdom come for all we cared.

.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Sonart . Meaning the folks who started the war. Cheney had us coming home by Christmas of '03, cuz there wouldn't be any resistance.

In some ways, war is near shear genius. If there wasn't any resistance, the US could ahve still set up bases (and undoubtedly would have) "to maintain security" against any potential resistance. And, of course, with resistance we're obviously there to "maintain security" against internal resistance and from any other threats.

That's a good formula for more military growth and more resistance to feed it. And, of course, any crap that happens is always the enemy's fault (including the media's), or perhaps a few bad apples. It's never the whole apple cart that's rotten.

Of course, this truism stands only so long as we stand for it.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

Urged on by Kimberly Kagan's cover story, "How They Did It: Executing the Winning Strategy in Iraq," in the latest Weekly Standard, Rich Lowry, William Kristol and Tony Blankley are heaving great gobs of caution to the wind in their assessments.

So the left finds some reporters excessively optimistic on the surge's success.

Mr. Blankley exudes the most confidence. "As of Veterans Day 2007, I think one can claim a very real expectation that next year, the world may see a genuine, old-fashioned victory in the Iraq war," the Washington Times columnist writes. "In five years, we will have overturned Saddam Hussein's government, killed, captured or driven out almost all al-Qaeda terrorists, suppressed the violent Shiite militias, induced the Sunni tribal leaders and their people to shun resistance and send their sons into the army and police and seek peaceful resolution of disputes –and we will have stood up a multisectarian, tribally inclusive army capable of maintaining the peace that our troops established.

The Washington Times is a conservative source, but what Mr. Blankley says is true, these have been the accomplishments of intervention, we can differ on the degree of completeness in their accomplishment, but these things have been done.

"The reports coming out of Iraq the past month suggest we are not yet there –but almost."

Almost or not, we're definitely seeing progress towards the goals, which is a whole lot more than was evident a few months ago.

Any semblance of victory, the conservative columnists figure, will put anti-war Democrats in quite a pickle when they have to make their case to voters.

Democrats have made this campaign all about just war in Iraq, that and immigration.

"Now that some US commanders consider al-Qaeda in Iraq all but routed, Democrats should be delighted," Mr. Lowry writes in his King Features Syndicate column. "Instead, they avert their eyes."

Do US commanders really believe Al Qaeda has been practically eliminated? That sounds incautious, but we'd have to recognize insurgents or terrorists have definitely been pushed back some. That is success, not complete success, not successful enough, but some success for sure.

In Mr. Kristol's view, "the Democratic party, and its presidential candidates, are in the ridiculous position of being more anti-war now that we're winning than they were when we were losing.

This is true and if those conservative journalists aren't exagerating too much, we likely will see further reconciliation, diminishing attacks and the local government coming together just as planned and in succeeding steps as the US political campaigns advance.

"The surge ... is clobbering al-Qaeda," the Weekly Standard columnist declares. "It could also end up clobbering the Democratic presidential nominee, who will be on record as repeatedly having sought to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. The Democratic candidates have, as Joe Lieberman said last week, 'emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq.' They've also politically invested in such a narrative. It was a bad (and dishonorable) investment. It may well cost them the 2008 election." Nancy Kruh: Winning in Iraq? | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Opinion: Balance of Opinion

Well maybe the surge isn't quite "clobbering" terrorists, but the Democrats sure have invested in a narrative of defeat. Portraying things as going badly in Iraq is the key to their victory.