Which Exit Plan Do You Support?
You are against the war in Iraq.
Aren't all reasonable human beings?
Congress needs to know which exit plan you support. That's right. Our leaders need advice from people who wear pajamas all day while maneuvering through porn sites.
You - expert unemployed man! Should they limit funding to force redeployment? Should new troops only be sent if they meet the basic safety standards of training, rest and equipment? Put down your blow-up doll and contribute an opinion.
Speak up. They can't hear you.
posted by kate @ 11:18 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Kate, the question isnt 'are you against the war in iraq, arent all reasonable human beings?' It is 'why are you against the war in iraq?'
Right now about 65% are against the war "currently". I would say half of those are b/c they are inherently against war, even if mostly justified. The other half are probably against it b/c its going so badly.
I 'personally' (that means my opinion) believe that we still should have gone in, for we had to start pre-emptively stopping leaders that are harboring terrorists, which Iraq was. Now were they working with them, not really, except the 25K reward to families of iraqis that blow themselves up killing jews in Israel. However, we should have gone in with 250K + troops, whooped arse, and then had a much different "Rules of Engagement", which would give the troops much more freedom in rooting these thugs out.
If the morons in the administration had followed something closer to that, only about 40% would be "currently" against the war, b/c it would be going better. thats my 'opinion.'
As it is I am disgusted with the war, as the strategy has failed thus far.
I was uneasy about the war in the beginning for many reasons. I never trusted our President, for one. Now I want the troops to come home. My own personal litmus test: Would I want my children over there fighting for The Cause? Never in a million years.
So no one's children should be there. As far as I'm concerned.
Something in me abhors the thought of leaving behind innocent Iraqis who count on our soldiers for security. The insurgents will slaughter them after we leave.
It is equally abhorrent to stay putting at risk American soldiers after they have done what we asked them to do, which was to remove a dictator and provide protection long enough to start a new government.
My preference is to put together an international coalition of soldiers, with the help of the United Nations, as a peacekeeping force. The problem, of course, is they are not yet at peace.
Therefore, we should sponsor a meeting of NATO nations and devise a plan of action to quell the violence in Iraq. I believe Condi Rice needs to lend urgency to the matter by personally visiting NATO members. She needs to go on a whirlwind trip, move expeditiously and with urgency to arrange for the international meeting.
Additionally, the United Nations needs to begin preparations for a multinational peacekeeping force to go in to Iraq once NATO brings a reasonable degree of peace to the area. In other words, the United States can supply the logistics, NATO the muscle, and the UN the peacekeeping force.
Iraq will either partition itself along sectarian lines, or one group will dominate the others. The question is how long we will continue to fool ourselves into thinking we have all that much influence over it. We can get out now, or later, the result will still be failure unless we stop acting as if Iraq, Iran and Syria are the only players.
We need to use diplomacy but not in the ways typically suggested. The Iraq war is at its core not a US vs. anyone problem, or at heart an Arab-Israeli conflict, it is a hardliner vs. reformer issue within the countries of the region. Each has an interest in focusing the attention of their dissatisfied populations on the east west clash and maintaining the status quo. Whether secular or religious, the government elites in all have the same MO-keep the people uneducated and unsophisticated so they can be mobilized to defend Islam but not to improve their individual status in their home county. It's time Suadi Arabia in particular was pushed to admit that 9/10 of the region's problems don't have a thing to do with either the US or Israel. If we pushed the Saudis too hard and had to forego their oil it would be tough, but what has the war cost?
Rich, I'll bite. Which terrorists was pre invasion Iraq harboring? While tis true Abu Nidal operated from there, he did from our ally Egypt as well. The Iraqi government claimed he committed suicide in Baghdad, but his Palestinian pals say Hussein ordered his killing. Not for us perhaps, but not agin us either. Under the "harboring terrorists" theory Pakistan and Somalia both made more sense as targets for invasion. (IMHO the recent Ethiopian aided strike in Somalia was brilliant.)
At http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/04winter/wester.htm
you will find a 2004 article published by the US Army War College that concludes the strike against Saddam Hussien "does not meet the ethical criteria for 'preemptive war' in the classical Just War tradition." (The three other traditions are Realism-purely out of self-interest "largely making moral analysis irrelevant" not something I want to sign on to. Holy War-just not us I don't think, but maybe so, anyone from Largo in a high administration position? Pacifism-all war is wrong. Not my personal belief, so make that something I share with W.)
Ultimately, I was among those who was opposed to the war from the beginning, primarily because I thought it would suck all the oxygen out of the progress we were making in Afghanistan. However, once committed, the Shinseki strategy was indeed the way to go. What we have now is what you get with a Sec Def who thinks you can mount a war with the Filene's Basement Strategy.
port tampa,
I didnt say that our current strategy is to invade harboring countries, i said it WAS the strategy. Clearly invading and overthrowing govts like that is slightly more difficult than we predicted. We will have to rely more on special ops and cruise missiles for areas in Pakistan, IRan, etc. that have terror groups or terror camps.
Rich-Yes you said WAS our strategy, and for the sake of argument I agreed with you. I asked what terrorists you think Iraq WAS harboring that made it a logical place to open another front in the GWOT. The question still stands.
for sure besides that leader that you mentioned, there was a leader in afghanistan that fled that country when we invaded it, and went to iraq, and stayed there, and when the US invaded there, he ran the al-quaida operation there... i think his name was zarqawi, im not sure. 2 leaders, many proteges, we dont need to name the proteges, for they were the terror warriors that are stupid enough to blow themselves up.
Plus faulty (possibly) worldwide intelligence told us that saddam STILL had his WMD's, and was seeking more. Between those 2 things, it seemed at the time to be a big threat. I still think he may have had the old WMD's, but shipped them to syria. We all know now he didnt currently have the capability he was seeking to get more, and more modern ones.
Rich-Zarqawi didn't have much of a following in pre-invasion Iraq. In fact, when he fled Afghanistan he took up with some radical Kurd Islamists in the northern mountains. You will remember that we were enforcing the no fly line specifically to support the Kurds and their fluorishing autonomous region. Were the Kurds "harboring" terrorists? I think not, no more than Germany was when Zarqawi fled Jordan after serving a prison sentence for trying to overthrow the monarchy.
My point really is not to poke holes in your position as much as it is to indicate that most Americans, and regrettably this seems to include the president, don't have a very thorough understanding of the Middle East and the wider Islamic world. It proved our undoing in Iraq.
I don't think either side of aisle has the stomach for what needs to be done-withdraw from Iraq now and commit to a robust presence of those dread nation builders (SOF) in failed and near failed states. A committment that would have to last decades to succeed. Regrettably, we have trouble looking past the next news cycle much less past the next five presidential elections.
I concede your point. Besides those immensed in military operations and strategy, i dont think anyone truly knows the extent of everything going on, and what really needs to be done. And it will take decades, especially when Europe transforms into Eurabia.
Post a Comment
<< Home