Bush: Troops to Stay in Iraq for Years

[alva]

The main problem here, which was known at the time of Vietnam, is that peacekeeping is not a military job.

You won the war easily enough, that was never the problem.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Wow. Great question! What was the reply given to Helen Thomas?

Anyone?

I'm sure it was a nonanswer.

[Dinner]

A very interesting thing has occured in Iraq recently. Before insurgent attacks were of the type where a small group of men planted a roadside bomb, a car bomb, or mortored a base after which they ran before the return fire wiped them out. It was rare to see more then a dozen insurgents ever take part in any activity.

Recently a group of 200 insurgents attacked an Iraqi government controlled jail which housed numerous insurgents who had been captured. They had teams cut the phone and electrical lines just before the attack, they had different fire teams with different objectives, and they even had a team set up to ambush government reinforcements before they arrived. That is the first company level work that the insurgents have done which I have heard of.

NPR was reporting that many of the tactics used were standard American tactics which they'd been teaching to the Iraqi government security forces so it seems that the insurgents have infiltrated these organizations and are using the training they learn to then go out and train insurgent groups. They've gone from being small poorly trained squads to being able to conherently run company sized operations. Interesting stuff and an indication of what sort of things the coming civil war in Iraq will involve.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by fed1943
Show clear evidence that you are not there to get cheap oil and everybody will believe that you are there to defend democracy,tolerance and safety.
Best regards,

*Looks up at the price of gas on way to work*

So much for cheap oil.

[dannubis]

Well, ask the lobby around your dear leader how much their profits increased ey ?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think Bush is smart enough to go to war for the express purpose of ****ing everything up, so oil prices shoot through the roof. Hell, I don't think Rummy or Cheney were that smart either.

[SlowwHand]

I beg to disagree, MRT. That's what the military is for. Securing the objective. If not, send congress.

[Q Classic]

If the war was about oil and securing supplies for America, then it was worthless exercise. Of course, the war was never about oil.

If the war was about WMD, then it was a failure. Of course, we now know the war wasn't about WMD.

If the war was about liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam, then it was a success. Of course, we now know the war wasn't just about Saddam.

If the war was about fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here, then the jury's still out on that. Of course, we now know that the war only exacerbated the Islamist situation in the region.

If the war was about giving Iraq a peaceful and stable democracy, then the jury's still out on that as well. Of course, the way things are going, at least portrayed by the liberal, east-coast, blame-America-first media elite, then it looks like that grand experiment won't be a success any time soon.

If the war was about giving Iraqis liberty and freedom, then we've succeeded. Of course, that's dependant on how you define "success": liberty and freedom from political oppression and dictatorship, sure, but on the other hand, now those brown-faced cowards are living under the oppression of fear due to a little terrorist bomb here and there.

===

Sloww: the rest of the world had problems with Saddam. The UN had problems with Saddam. The issue was never about whether it was a good idea to eliminate him or not, but rather, given that he's deposed, what next? And the rest of the world gazed upon the Bush Administration, shook their heads, and had a straw poll of no-confidence, deciding unfavorably upon this Administration.

Bush, of course, in the grand old American way, said "Screw you bastards, we'll do it anyway!" While this led to fantastic things in the past, such as the development of a vibrant democracy that flourished in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, or the development of the Atomic Bomb, or many other technological innovations, the American command went into an area that is in no way what they are familiar with, as far as attitudes and approach; and with the delicacy of a spastic, seizure-ridden 800-pound bull in a 4-foot by 4-foot teacup shop, we dealt with a perceived threat (those terror-laden teacups won't be bothering us anymore) without paying attention to a greater threat (we're stuck in a 4-foot by 4-foot shop).

Honestly, if you care whether Iraq rots or not, it doesn't matter. What does matter is if America lets Iraq rot after making such a terrible mess, we won't be "fighting terrorists over there", we won't have a shining beacon on a sand dune, we won't give the Iraqis the liberty and freedom they must, in some corner of their being, desire; we'll have failed in all but one of the supposed objectives, an objective for which the costs, when tallied, may not be worth the prize. An effort which might only cause the installation of a more unfriendly government to the United States, causing us more headaches down the line.

While people like Ted might get their heads sawed off, people like you, who care not for the perceptions and image of the American Ideal worldwide, cause the very situations where people like Ted lose their head.

===

Incidentally, if we're trying to spread the seed of democracy, it'll only grow if implanted in something fertile; if we go in, shooting everywhere, without being picky with our targets, we could wake up some time later finding out we've gotten into bed with a horrible monster.

Some people might not mind the whole pulling out bit. But really, it doesn't matter if you pull out, even after you told your partner you'd just stick it in for a moment. Pulling out has a lousy success rate in preventing disaster.

[Chemical Ollie]

Put Saddam back in power, and see how many minutes he will last

[Pekka]

Well... basically.. it was evident even before the war, that it will go to occupation stage, the only question was how well the troops can maintain stability. It's kind of out of the hands, but I don't know what else anyone expected. Everyone knows, that the stability means increasing the forces in there substantially. This also calls for coalition efforts, not just the US efforts.

It's kind of pointless to point out and say, well, we won't help you, you created this mess.

The mess is in the hands, so everyone should have the nuts to chip in and help. The only way to help is to create stability enough for the Iraqi security to start working, and keep stability so that the Iraqi people learn the processes of the system and to keep the rebels at bay as long as the Iraqi people can build up to take it on themselves. This won't happen unless stability grows. Stability grows only if the number of troops is multiplied.

Going away now will only end in bloodshed. There's nothing more damaging than slow burning wars. Examples: Africa.

The fight needs to be fought. It isn't over until it's over, and even then it isn't over. But if people call it quits too soon, it will blow up to everyones face. I think this is only realism. And yes it can be won. Wars can be won. But it isn't easy, for few years of slow operation. It's years of keeping stability in the level required. What the country need is security. Security from its own criminals, who roam the streets. This won't end until we have enough men to secure those streets and take the fight back to where it belongs, to the backyards of the rebels. Take the momentum back. Gain the initiative back. Take their air out, and supplies and support.

[SlowwHand]

Q, and it's people like you who ***** at whatever action is taken.
Stay, whine. Leave, whine.

Going was a given.

[Q Classic]

Sloww, don't associate words or beliefs with me that I do not hold.

I was not a fan of going there in the first place, true. Was it a given? No. (Well, aside from the fact that Saddam tried to kill W's dad, and the rest of the administration was jonesing for a fight...)

Now that we're there, my point has consistently been that we should stay the course--but is my saying that my belief that many aspects of the reconstruction were mishandled by this administration whining now?

Is my saying that we've created a huge mess there whining?

Is the simple fact that I don't side with our president in many of his actions, and believing he's made mistakes somehow whining? Or worse yet, anti-American, unpatriotic, or the like?

Sloww, do yourself a favor. Think before you post.

Simply put, we succeeded in one aspect of the war--we did depose Saddam. That's a good thing, mind you. Was it worth the cost of the fight? At this juncture, if we leave, then no.

If we leave now, we'll just have to go back there in 20 years or so anyway.

[Barnabas]

I agree with Bush, they have to stay till things calm down.

I wouldnt have invaded, but after invading they at least have to replace Saddam with something better.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
I agree with Bush, they have to stay till things calm down.

I wouldnt have invaded, but after invading they at least have to replace Saddam with something better.

It sucks that the American people get stuck with the bill. Bush lied and sold the public this war on three premises: Sadaam had huge stockpiles of WMD, he was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, and that this war would be quick and the transition simple. Most people were fooled by this stuff. The public perception has largely changed since the truth has come out. The Bush administration sold the American people a bill of goods. Now we're wasting hundreds of billions of dollars overseas, money that could be spent on our own infrastructure, on a fraud war

It's ironic that in 2000 Bush campaigned against nationbuilding (most conservatives opposed Clinton's involvement in the Balkans), but as President Bush has gotten us involved in the biggest nation building project since WW2.

I wish that either we'd leave Iraq or get a real coalition dedicated to helping the U.S. rebuild the country. I'm by no means a pacifist. I just don't want to have to pay for the U.S. to be the world's policeman. You would have thought that we would have learned our lesson after Vietnam.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's privileged material for generals writing their biography.

True enough.

Oh, and real nice of YOUR BOY to dump this war on the next President Drake

Fantastic

I remember you being one of the flag-waving fanatics at the time of the invasion, Ted.

It's become clear that Ted has a knack (or maybe a pathological need?) for being on the wrong side of every issue...

Wrong then and wrong now. Got to hand it to him, he is consistent.