Pulling out of Iraq and the WoT

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Perhaps this requires a different thread, but how does our pulling out of Iraq help the WOT? One of the central "lessons learned" in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 is that al Qa'ida was able to set up bases in civil war-torn Afghanistan because we abandoned that country to civil war after we had supported the various rebel factions against the Russians.

Do the Dems think anything fundamentally different will happen this time in the case of Iraq? And if they do, what is the basis of their thinking?

Afghanistan is landlocked, with terrain that favors concealment and defense, and far from any really US friendly power. Nobody really gave a **** except to the extent the Indians could benefit by having NA/EA warlords create some instability on the Pakistan border, and Pakistan could achieve some stability there to concentrate on India, but supporting the Taleban.

Iraq will be settled out one way or another, since all of its neighbors are interested in the outcome. The only question is how long and how much bloodshed. The rest of the Arab world isn't interested in a Shiite proxy for Iran.

The US let its military get too small and ****ed up the invasion by failing to adequately plan for occupation beyond having favored contractors get quick opportunities to make a buck. Go back to late 2002/early 2003 predictions about how the course of events would go (not vague crap about "it'll be a long road" but all that "beacon of democracy" nonsense), and see how far off track things have been.

The solution isn't to moronically and stubbornly keep troops in a non-sustainable mission for an indefinite period of time. The whole bit about "the enemy outwaiting us" was true from the outset - the arab insurgents aren't going anywhere, and if we stayed 200 years, they'd be fighting us in 200 years.

The only way to deal with insurgency is to turn it into a local on local fight.

In over 4 years, 3,200+ dead, 20,000+ wounded, and hundreds of billions in cost, there is no clear indication we are any better off than before we started. The Iranians are more uppity, our forces are stretched thin, our efforts in Afghanistan have been compromised, OBL and AAZ are still unaccounted for.

Iraq has gone from a tinpot dictatorship with no present or imminent ability to harm us to a dysfunctional cesspool. What else has changed?

[Sava]

Re: Pulling out of Iraq and the WoT

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat



The solution isn't to moronically and stubbornly keep troops in a non-sustainable mission for an indefinite period of time.

Why do you hate America?

[MichaeltheGreat]

I confess, I'm an Arab-loving commie.

[Drake Tungsten]

You pussies have only been in Iraq for four years and lost around 3000 men, yet you're already trying to throw in the towel. We were in Algeria for twice as long and lost six times as many men, yet you still think that we're the cowards...

Head back home with your tail between your legs, Yanks. You don't have the balls needed to run an empire.

[Spiffor]

[MichaeltheGreat]

Since when did you start playing frog, Nebraska boy?

And how many frogs were actually lost in Algeria, as opposed to foreign legionaires?

Just because the frogs were too stubborn and stupid to stop the wastage in a losing situation doesn't mean we have to repeat their incompetence.

[Drake Tungsten]

And how many frogs were actually lost in Algeria, as opposed to foreign legionaires?

Hopefully not too many...

[Ned]

Are you saying the Iraqi's neighbors will not allow al Qa'ida to set up bases in Iraq (Sunni triangle) from which they can conduct worldwide operations? Some of those neighbors (Sryia and Iran) already support terrorists and training camps and are somewhat friendly to al Qa'ida. Only Saudi Arabia and Turkey seem opposed to al Qa'ida.

[Wildbore]

The Iraq war was the smartest and easiest decision Bush made during his term.

Saddam Hussein was given the chance to comply with inspectors by the deadline, inspectors said he didn't. UN resolution 1441 said Saddam Hussein should face serious consequences, he did.

Terrorists started coming into Iraq afterwords. To counter-act this, Bush made the easy decision to keep the US in Iraq to prevent terrorists from toppling the democracy. If the US would have left Iraq, by now Iraq would be a failed state, and the al-Qaeda would most likely have trained dozens of sleeper cells in the US to blow stuff up.

3200 or so soldiers died. Boo-hoo, not a whole lot. They were doing their job and they still are, if you pull them out America is not only cowardly, but the soldiers are prevented from doing their duty.

Even now, the UN Sec. General is saying Iraq must be fixed. Even the stupidest person can understand that a large number of troops are needed to do that.

[Nylan-Nolan]

Quit whining and finish the job already!

As I've once heard: "You Americans have been late for every major war! Now you want to leave this one early!"

Seriously, what has happened to the US since the hippy invasion? I still think we should have stayed in Vietnam to finish the job.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You pussies have only been in Iraq for four years and lost around 3000 men, yet you're already trying to throw in the towel. We were in Algeria for twice as long and lost six times as many men, yet you still think that we're the cowards...

Head back home with your tail between your legs, Yanks. You don't have the balls needed to run an empire.

Drake

[lord of the mark]

afghanistan is bordered by Pakistan, Iran, and the Russian dominated central Asian stans. Paki, Iran and Russia all had substantial interest in the outcome in Afghan. And conflicts with each other. The net result was a state dominated by the pro-Pakistan Taliban, who were aligned with AQ. And before anyone says that no state would dare to ally the way Pakistan did then, I give you Pakistan today, and Waziristan.

An analagous, if not identical, situation, could still take place in Iraq. I dont see the configuration of nearby powers, or the terrain, preventing that. The proximity of US force is a difference, assuming a future US govt has the stomach to go back into Iraq to alter the balance against any faction that is protecting AQ.

The real question is whether there is any net benefit, either in terms of political progress in Iraqi reconciliation, or in improvement in the Iraqi army, from a continued US presence in say, the next 24 months. If not, then we might as well leave now, as the negative consequences of withdrawl will be no worse, and we could begin to rebuild our army. However a full analysis of that would require a detailed look at current Iraqi political situation, including the oil deal, the debaathification proposal, the ferment in Anbar, and the possibility of new alignments in the Iraqi parliament, rather than a "theyre just hopeless Arabs" snark, despite how much the events since Jan 2005 would seem to justify that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
Only Saudi Arabia and Turkey seem opposed to al
Qa'ida.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Nylan-Nolan
Quit whining and finish the job

Suck my ****, asswipe, and if you think it's a "job" to "finish" then get your own ass down in the sand.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wildbore
The Iraq war was the smartest and easiest decision Bush made during his term.

Saddam Hussein was given the chance to comply with inspectors by the deadline, inspectors said he didn't. UN resolution 1441 said Saddam Hussein should face serious consequences, he did.

Terrorists started coming into Iraq afterwords. To counter-act this, Bush made the easy decision to keep the US in Iraq to prevent terrorists from toppling the democracy. If the US would have left Iraq, by now Iraq would be a failed state, and the al-Qaeda would most likely have trained dozens of sleeper cells in the US to blow stuff up.

3200 or so soldiers died. Boo-hoo, not a whole lot. They were doing their job and they still are, if you pull them out America is not only cowardly, but the soldiers are prevented from doing their duty.

Even now, the UN Sec. General is saying Iraq must be fixed. Even the stupidest person can understand that a large number of troops are needed to do that.

I'm sorry, but are calling the US Democrats stupid?