What If Iraq Is A Success?!

[Blackrain]

Dare to imagine the unthinkable: victory in Iraq. Imagine the 2008 November election preceeded by a 200,000 man victory march down Pennsylvania Ave-enabled by an Iraq that is strong enough, experienced enough, and dedicated enough to fight its own fight. Preceeded by the death of Bin Laden sometime over the next 2 1/2 yrs....How does a dem get a snowball's chance in Frisco weeks later? The left that's betting and quasi hoping/aiding on a defeat-begging for it (and calling for it today in fact!) has ignored the most likely scenarios.

Most likely? Every objective in Iraq-every milestone has been reached by the US military, and so there's no reason to think it can't continue doing the job. (see below for details)

Iraqis want the US out, and they do NOT want civil war or outsiders. They want to take control of their own govt and be like the Gulf States: live well off their oil.

UBL can't live forever, and every month he gets older/the US gets closer.

So, unless those who oppose the war (violently as insurgents, non-violently as protesters, or passively as Democrats) can get their way....the 2008 victory march is possible. It's gotta be Howard Dean's nightmare. Chris Matthews' nightmare. Bill Maher's, Michael Moore's, and so forth.

I bet they can't even imagine it.

*(from above)
Like I said, every objective has been reached so far-and typically on time or close (as often ahead of schedule as behind)

invasion-Wes Clark said it'd take 10,000KIA. Scott Ritter said the US would have to nuke its way out. Opposition (including Saddam) called Baghdad America's Stalingrad. Tell it to the Marines. Tell it to the 3rd ID. And in the greatest pimp move of all....Rumsfeld actually, literally invited the media cameras along for the ride!

WMD-found some/don't need to find a lot since they are wMd. More importantly found that he'd been prepped, ready, and had already started escaping the sanctions noose. He was ready and intended to restart programs with fresh wmd in weeks, days, even hours! More than proved that inspection process would not/could not prove his disarmament because he was STILL hiding things.

ties to terror-after getting ZQ and pillaging AQ in Iraq for the last 2wks....ya gotta call that a success. Particularly since more AQ have been killed (or killed themselves) in Iraq than the rest of the world combined since 911

capture of Saddam-We got him

Coalitional Provisional Authority-they did it

Governing Council-said they'd never work together, but they did

elections-worked

elections-worked again

elections-worked even better

formation of govt-too divided, there'll be civil war....nope. Did that too

prevent civil war? Zarqawi, Syria, Al Queda, Iran, and every American and/or Bush hater on the planet tried to make it happen or passively encourage it.....but it didn't; even after the Golden Mosque bombing. Civil War Prevented

Can't train the Iraqis-almost at 270000 and ahead of schedule. Will be at 325000 by April next year/maybe earlier

Sorry, but if US troops come home....it's gonna be in the middle of the 08 campaign, it'll be with victory, it'll be with CLEAR and sustained victory, and it's gonna burrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrn the dems and the media who all said it couldn't be done. Who all preached that love would prevent Al Queda butchers from cutting up soldiers, flying planes into towers, and so forth.

For too many, 911 didn't change a thing. :eek:

[PatrickHenry]

A pipe dream? What you been smokin'?

[bishop]

one step in the right direction would be seeing the iraqis abolish their pro-desertion policy where iraqi "soldiers" can flee at the first sign of danger - leaving u.s. cannon fodder there to take the hits.

all this hot air about elections is fine and dandy - too bad it hasn't resulted in any improvement in terms of security. all the elections in the world won't make iraq a stable country - especially if iraqi "soldiers" aren't required to fight for their own country.

i'd love to see everything turn out for the better, so that we can pull out and turn out attention to our own issues (rather than being weighed down with bush's nation-building project).. elections and capturing/killing a few token al qaeda leaders isn't going to create the conditions where even bushbots would begin to push for our withdrawal.. and fabricated numbers of trained iraqi troops is meaningless if they are free to desert at the first sign of danger.

[brien]

Quote by: Blackrain Dare to imagine the unthinkable: victory in Iraq. Imagine the 2008 November election preceeded by a 200,000 man victory march down Pennsylvania Ave-enabled by an Iraq that is strong enough, experienced enough, and dedicated enough to fight its own fight. Preceeded by the death of Bin Laden sometime over the next 2 1/2 yrs....How does a dem get a snowball's chance in Frisco weeks later? The left that's betting and quasi hoping/aiding on a defeat-begging for it (and calling for it today in fact!) has ignored the most likely scenarios. Most likely? Every objective in Iraq-every milestone has been reached by the US military, and so there's no reason to think it can't continue doing the job. (see below for details) Iraqis want the US out, and they do NOT want civil war or outsiders. They want to take control of their own govt and be like the Gulf States: live well off their oil. UBL can't live forever, and every month he gets older/the US gets closer. So, unless those who oppose the war (violently as insurgents, non-violently as protesters, or passively as Democrats) can get their way....the 2008 victory march is possible. It's gotta be Howard Dean's nightmare. Chris Matthews' nightmare. Bill Maher's, Michael Moore's, and so forth. I bet they can't even imagine it. *(from above) Like I said, every objective has been reached so far-and typically on time or close (as often ahead of schedule as behind) invasion-Wes Clark said it'd take 10,000KIA. Scott Ritter said the US would have to nuke its way out. Opposition (including Saddam) called Baghdad America's Stalingrad. Tell it to the Marines. Tell it to the 3rd ID. And in the greatest pimp move of all....Rumsfeld actually, literally invited the media cameras along for the ride! WMD-found some/don't need to find a lot since they are wMd. More importantly found that he'd been prepped, ready, and had already started escaping the sanctions noose. He was ready and intended to restart programs with fresh wmd in weeks, days, even hours! More than proved that inspection process would not/could not prove his disarmament because he was STILL hiding things. ties to terror-after getting ZQ and pillaging AQ in Iraq for the last 2wks....ya gotta call that a success. Particularly since more AQ have been killed (or killed themselves) in Iraq than the rest of the world combined since 911 capture of Saddam-We got him Coalitional Provisional Authority-they did it Governing Council-said they'd never work together, but they did elections-worked elections-worked again elections-worked even better formation of govt-too divided, there'll be civil war....nope. Did that too prevent civil war? Zarqawi, Syria, Al Queda, Iran, and every American and/or Bush hater on the planet tried to make it happen or passively encourage it.....but it didn't; even after the Golden Mosque bombing. Civil War Prevented Can't train the Iraqis-almost at 270000 and ahead of schedule. Will be at 325000 by April next year/maybe earlier Sorry, but if US troops come home....it's gonna be in the middle of the 08 campaign, it'll be with victory, it'll be with CLEAR and sustained victory, and it's gonna burrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrn the dems and the media who all said it couldn't be done. Who all preached that love would prevent Al Queda butchers from cutting up soldiers, flying planes into towers, and so forth. For too many, 911 didn't change a thing. :eek:

You make reference to the Dems, as if they are the only ones who oppose this incursion into the sovereignty of another nation which was no real threat to the US at all.

You forgot, the rest of the world. Your myopic view of foreign affairs is only exceeded by your chest thumping and cock strutting attitude here.

Iraq is no better off today than it was under Saddam on a humanitarian basis.

Please see this link to temper your views on the invasion Iraq.

http://www.uni-erfurt.de/praktische_...0in%20Iraq.pdf

All of your points are based upn an imperialist invasion into the sovereignty of another nation. You are implying a link in Iraq and 911. The evidence doesn't support this.

See this link:http://nationaljournal.com/about/njw...05/1122nj1.htm

From the link:

In June 2004, the 9/11 commission concluded: "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

And from another link:http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...c+Iraq+and+911

LINKING IRAQ AND 9/11
Indeed, the current administration rationalized the Iraq war upon a false link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and has repeated that link ever since. Specifically,

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda". (http://nationaljournal.com/about/njw...05/1122nj1.htm)



And yet Bush, Cheney and other top administration officials claimed and continue to claim that Saddam was behind 9/11. See http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007005.php. Indeed, Bush administration officials apparently swore in a lawsuit that Saddam was behind 9/11. (http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/pri...swore_sadd.htm)

President Bush's March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq, includes the following paragraph:



(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030319-1.html)

The administration's successful but false linking of Saddam with 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to invade Iraq. While the focus now may be on false WMD claims, it is important to remember that at the time, the Saddam-911 link was touted as a strong reason to invade Iraq. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html)

As the above proves, the US incursion into Iraq was, and remains, illegal. Nothing will ever change this. Conclusion: anything that happens in Iraq is rooted in an illegal invasion. Call it success, call it failure. I call it a giant foreign affairs blunder upon the behalf of an arrogant administration that ignores public will and flaunts its power with no regard for anyone but their own circle of supporters.

[rmnunez]

The Iraqi government will present a national reconciliation plan to parliament Sunday that would grant some insurgents amnesty and ask for approval of a series of steps for Iraqis to take over security from US troops, according to a key politician and a draft of the document. A draft of the 28-point proposal by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki contains an updated version of a sequence of moves (with no specific dates) preparing Iraqi forces to assume control of national security.

This seems agreeable and in conformity with what has been proponed; just as soon as they are ready to take over, authority will be transfered to them.

The US-led coalition wants to hand over security in certain regions while withdrawing to larger regional bases in case of emergency. A final stage would involve the drawdown of U.S. troops from those bases.

This is the Coalition plan, lots of critical lefties object to this as they don’t want the US to establish these bases in the region, they perceive the US could exert influence and control the place from these military installations.

The plan proposes a general pardon for thousands of prisoners who are determined not to have committed 'crimes and clear terrorist actions.' The government already has been pardoning groups of such prisoners and releasing them by the hundreds in recent months.

I’d be concerned over those released suspected of ‘unclear’ terrorist actions.

The plan promises to open a review of the country's new constitution to address demands made by Sunni Arabs, while attempting to find a way to eradicate sectarian militias. It also pledges to shield the crucial Defense and Interior ministries from outside political influence

.
The Sunnís then get a second bite at the apple, they boycotted the constitution-drafting process and elections, were left out and then accomodated back in. If they are going to let them edit the constitution its going to have to be in exchange for something.

The early draft obtained by AP called for a joint stand by Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds on a series of critical issues, before drawing up more detailed proposals. It was not clear what progress had been made on that front, including a call for a 'candid and clear stand' by all sides on policy toward supporters of former President Saddam Hussein and his outlawed Baath party. The plan did not include a call for halting 'anti-terrorist' operations by coalition forces, Othman said, contradicting some published reports. Othman said committees would be formed to discuss the amnesty plans and the problem of dealing with members of the once-ruling Baath Party. He stressed that those proposals remained on the drawing board.

Membership in the party alone shouldn’t be viewed adversely, it may have been a necessity for many, but membership coupled with an official position could be problematic. How to deal with this could depend on the official’s position, how long he was in it and how the former the position was used. Another consideration relates to the valuable skills and experience held by forrmer government officials who may have been members of the party.

http://interestalert.com/story/sitei...r=World%20News

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Blackrain Iraqis want the US out, and they do NOT want civil war or outsiders. They want to take control of their own govt and be like the Gulf States: live well off their oil.

So how are the politicians that sent 2500 or so of our GI's off to die, with tens of thousands of others maimed for life, and hundreds of billions of dollars of borrowed money spent, going to look to the voters then?? If the Iraqis ask us to leave, price their oil so that they can "live well", and go off into the sunset happy and free, what exactly have we won?? Are the families of the dead and maimed going to be satisfied basking in the glow of knowing that we did a good deed? When taxes go up to pay for the war, and gas prices stay high so the Iraqis can live well, are the voters going to wonder what it is that we've won??

[rmnunez]

Iraqis are a diverse lot, some seek first and foremost for the foreigners to leave, others are more concerned over the sectarian violence, damaged infrastructure, employment opportunities and criminal impunity. It seems naive to figure once the foreigners left everything would fall into place.

[Sonart]

.


Hey, this is Blackrain's wet dream. Let him have it the way he wants. Gawd knows it beats dealing with the day to day reality.

Besides, should our troops come marching home anytime soon, it won't be accompanied by a rousing cheer so much as a vast, national collective sigh of relief over a muttered, "Thank God".


.

[lsbskins1]

So, this is something that I wonder all the time; Why do conservatives need to pretend that if you oppose someone's plan for [insert objective here], it means you want the objective to fail? Are they really that stupid? Like, if I said "I propose that we should chop off everyone's nose so that garbage trucks stop stinking" and someone said, "That idea sucks!", I would be justified in saying that all conservatives want all Americans to live in stinky squalor and in fact will not be satisfied until we all have to sleep in trash trucks and eat the runny, soupy pig feed that came off the back of that truck in Dirty Jobs. I mean, that is essentially the same logic used to kick off this post, is it not?

[underbear1]

I'll wager Iraq goes into Civil War before June 2007 and American troops will flee the failed state, just like Cambodia and Laos.But Republicans have a habit of CUT and RUN, Nixon is exhibit A.
I'll also wager Osama will not be captured by Bush's exit from the White House.

[rmnunez]

The Government intends to form a committee to distinguish between groups that can be considered legitimate resistance and those that are beyond the pale. “For those that defended their country against foreign troops, we need to open a new page... They did not mean to destabilise Iraq. They were defending Iraqi soil,” said Adnan Ali, a senior member of the Dawa party of Nouri alMaliki, the Prime Minister.

So how does one distinguish "legitimate resistance" and that "beyond the pale"? My guess is that those who were motivated by a sense of defending Iraqi soil could pass, while the ones blowing up Shia shrines and setting off bombs in markets likely wouldn't make the cut.

Reading directly from the draft package, Mahmoud al-Mashaadani, the Parliament’s Sunni Speaker, told The Times: “There will be a general amnesty to release all the prisoners who were not involved in the shedding of innocent Iraqis’ blood.”

Could it be they plan to release prisoners involved in the shedding of innocent (or not) gringan (and other foreigner) blood?

Mr Talabani said that after the last meeting the groups went away to agree their position. He had since received “a message from a common friend that they are ready to discuss finalising an agreement with the US and the Iraqi Government”. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...239088,00.html

It would really be interesting to know what groups were involved in these negotiations, but it makes no difference as any coopted insurgents would be reduced from the insurgency.

Iraq released 500 detainees from Abu Ghraib prison Friday as part of an ongoing national reconciliation plan first announced by new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki earlier this month. Maliki promised that 2,500 prisoners held in US detention facilities and under Iraqi custody would be released if the detainees "are not Saddam Hussein loyalists or terrorists or anyone who has Iraqi blood on their hands." Friday's release follows the release of nearly 300 prisoners two weeks ago, and 600 prisoners prior to that. Lieutenant Colonel Keir-Kevin Curry, a spokesman for the US detention facilities in Iraq, said that about 2,300 prisoners have been released since Maliki announced the plan on June 7.

Mr. Maliki appears to be mistaken, we've seen more terrorist attacks on innocent Iraqis since he announced his plan.

People view Maliki's national reconciliation move as an attempt by the hardline Shiite prime minister to appease the Sunni minority, which is largely responsible for the insurgency against the Iraqi government. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/worldlatest/

Appeasement of Sunnis for national reconciliation?

[twoanickel]

Blackrain, those people have been fighting and killing one another for thousands of years. That is their nature, and the US is deluding itself if it thinks it has the means to stop that. As long as we are there the nations of the Middle East will become increasingly angry with the US for being there. Bush is swatting a hornet's nest with a baseball bat. Whether we leave or stay, they will keep fighting. Some people are not capable of living peacefully under our political system and it is arrogant for us to believe that they are obligated to conform to our idea of what their government should consist.

We believe in our right to self-determination. They have the same right.

[underbear1]

Remember Nixon didn't cut and run from Cambodia, Laos and Viet Nam until AFTER an election, see Repugs like to TALK TOUGH before elections, and then sneak out cowardly in the dark of night. They've recently uncovered the US made arrangements with CHINA before pulling out of Southeast Asia..............please just let us get our troops out, then you can DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO SOUTH VIET NAM!

[underbear1]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052601926.html

More Vietnam War Papers Released
Kissinger Told China U.S. Could Accept Communist Takeover

Henry A. Kissinger quietly acknowledged to China in 1972 that Washington could accept a communist takeover of South Vietnam if that evolved after a withdrawal of U.S. troops -- even as the war to drive back the communists dragged on with mounting deaths.

President Richard M. Nixon's envoy told Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai: "If we can live with a communist government in China, we ought to be able to accept it in Indochina."

JUST replace communist with Islamic Shiite fanatacism and you'll be reading the headlines about what Bush tells Iran before the Americans finally RUN from Iraq.

[rmnunez]

I don't think one could make the analogy that US intervention in Iraq is to their former intervention in Vietnam just as Iran's interest in the matter is as China's was upon that earlier intervention.

[Matt W]

Getting back to Iraq....an interesting little article about life in Baghdad....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...nt/5109828.stm

[Sonart]

.

And another one.

Intense fighting in Baghdad prompts curfew
U.S. troop death toll hits 12 for the week

June 24, 2006 --"BAGHDAD, Iraq – Iraq's government clamped a state of emergency on Baghdad and ordered everyone off the streets yesterday after U.S. and Iraqi forces battled insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades and rifles near the heavily fortified Green Zone.

The military also announced the deaths of five more U.S. troops in a particularly violent week for U.S. forces that included the discovery of the brutalized bodies of two soldiers. Twelve U.S. service members have died or been found dead this week.

The fierce fighting in the heart of Baghdad came despite a crackdown launched 10 days ago that put tens of thousands of U.S.-backed Iraqi troops on the streets as the new prime minister sought to restore a modicum of safety for the capital's 6 million people."--


.

[rmnunez]

When I first came here I could walk the streets of Baghdad with no protection, drink coffee while I was waiting to have my hair cut, smoke hubble bubble at a cafe, go shopping at King of Dates. The problems were already profound. I quickly learned key words -karaba makou, benzin makou, amal makou- no electricity, no petrol, no work. But there was also a strong sense that people were enjoying their freedom from the oppressive and homicidal regime of Saddam Hussein. And that they felt cautiously optimistic that their lives would, one day, improve. Now I can go nowhere without armed protection and I can only travel in an armoured private car. I can never spend much more than a quarter of an hour at a cafe or a shop in case an opportunistic informer, perhaps simply desperate for money, makes a mobile telephone call to kidnap us. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...nt/5109828.stm

So one would get the impression things have gotten worse, at least in this journalist's perspective. The difference between the situation before and now is what, due to the intervention or the insurgency?

[Matt W]

There seems to be no indication that the situation has improved at all since the intervention - in Baghdad, at least. In areas where the insurgency has no hold - the Kurdish north, for instance - this would appear not to be the case:-

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1094802.ece

However, even in previously quiet areas - such as Basra - it's getting worse.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1096222.ece

The overall impression I get is that Iraqis, whilst happy about Saddam being gone, are frustrated and desperate for any kind of improvement in their lives - and the Coalition has not been able to provide that.

[twoanickel]

No one can say Hussein was not criminally severe, but when it comes to a people's form of government and those who lead it, consideration must be given to the manner of people who are to live under that government.

Some populations are not prone to live in peace with one another under the conditions of a democracy. Despite Hussein's crimes, he kept the warring factions apart, provided an infrastructure (which the USA destroyed and has not yet restored to its former condition), saw to it that there was freedom of conscience for people to worship or not worship as they deemed best for themselves (Islamic and Christian lived peaceably together), women had freedoms unusual for an Islamic nation, and everyone had access to an education along with the right to keep and bear arms. Who can say walking down a Baghdad street today is as easy as it was in Sadam's Iraq? Some of his crimes were horrendous, but nevertheless, it seems that the people were better off then than they are now. When a people's suffering under a ruler is beyond reason in light of the circumstances, aren't the people themselves the ones to take care of that matter? The fact that no one had dethroned Saddam is an indication that a sizable majority of the people considered him to be insurance against another faction of the population from warrng aganst them.

The right of self-determination belongs not only to America, but to all nations. Perhaps the United States got off on this dictatorial kick when the Union denied Southern states the same right to independence and self-determination that the colonialists saw as an aspect of their God given rights to justify their separation from England. Think about it. Since that time the US has felt an arrogant right to manage other nation's affairs. And it cannot even control its own borders.

At this point there will be numerous objections about WMD and Sadam's intentions of war. BUT they conveniently forget that for the first time, the USA engaged in preemptive warfare. Check out the jus belli websitea, and you will see that in the history of mankind's judgment in regard to war, what the USA did at that time was never before recognized as a justified action for one nation to take against another. Hitler could also have claimed to be engaging in preventive measures. When you get to the bottom line, Iraq had not taken any action against the USA