The Issues: The War in Iraq

[simeon]

Maybe I'm not the guy to ask.  I was against going into Iraq even when the assumption was that he had WMDs.

But, that's not even really what this thread is about, and what I feared happened.

I don't care WHY we're there, or whether or not it was justified at this point.  We're there and we have to deal with it.  The question is how do we best handle our current situation?

Its a catch 22 Dave.

[StL FinFan]

To those that want us to stay into the war until we win:
What is your definition of winning this war?
Not trying to start anything, just curious.

[MaineDolFan]

Very realistic attitude and a great question.


I'm all for pulling out IF the war doesn't follow us home ... again.  I fear that the only way to live in peace with Muslim fanatics is to kill every last one of them.  

Two general problems with your post.

1 - those numbers are skewed.  Not all attacks that you posted are from the Muslim "fanatics."  

2 - the general thought process that has taken place of late is "the best defense is a good offense."  I don't agree.  You spend the resources that are spent currently over seas and reinvest those resources into protecting the souls within our borders and with enhanced intelligence.  While I don't like to hear of American targets abroad - once you've left the mothership, you're on your own.

We have a distinct advantage geographically, the same advantage that served this country well in WWI and WWII.  

I'm in the camp of "what the hell can we do now" in regards to Iraq.  History has taught us that the middle east has been a flash point for all world conflicts.  We can't allow that area to become more rocky than it already is.  But in a perfect world we would be using that energy in reinforcing our borders and with intelligence that would track US-interest targets.

This is a whole different way of fighting.  Our strength against this war is surgical strikes outside our borders when needed and amazing defense within our borders.

[run_to_win]

What do you suggest we do to fix the situation?

I don't think it's fixable.  

As Israel learns all the time, there's no peace with Muslim fanatics.  There's no way to live in peace with them regardless of what concessions you make.  

We could say we're sorry, walk away, abandon Israel, etc.  There's still be those who'd come after us.  

Even if we all mass convert there'd still be those who come after us.  Sectarian violence is common.  

Killing them just increases recruitment, especially due to their beliefs about 72 virgins.  Would killing them and openly condemning them to hell make a difference?  I don't know.  I doubt our PC public would even let us go down that road.

Leaving Iraq will lead to millions of Iraqi deaths.  Everyone who supported the troops or government, everyone who voted - they'll all be targets.  Leaving the Iraqi's hung out to dry will not create a lot of good will between us and the Islamic world.  

Of course, staying in Iraq doesn't seem to be creating much good wll either.

This is a problem that won't go away in the forseeable future.  We have to decide how, and more importantly, where, we want to manage it.

 

[run_to_win]

I'm in the camp of "what the hell can we do now" in regards to Iraq.  History has taught us that the middle east has been a flash point for all world conflicts.  We can't allow that area to become more rocky than it already is.

Would freedom, democracy and properity help stabilize the Middle East?  Perhaps if these people had a reason to live instead of just looking for a way to die honorably?

This is a whole different way of fighting.

If the war is justified then we need to adapt our tactics. Their tactics reflect an entirely different culture and way of thinking.

[Dave Gray]

A lot of those deaths aren't from Islamic Terrorism, what we're fighting now.  The Oklahoma City bombings, as I'm sure you know, were domestic.  The USS Cole was a military target.

I can't speak for all of these incidents, since I'm not intimately familiar.  But it seems that most of them are on foreign soil.

Even counting all of them, (and this is rather cold-hearted) it's a pretty negligible number over 20 years.  Not that any number of terrorist deaths is acceptable, just to be clear.  But, just in terms of saving lives, we've lost over 4,100 Americans in Iraq since the war began.  It's costing us more lives (not to mention Iraqi lives and tons of money) to fight a war.

And it's not to say that I'm supporting a weak stance on terrorism.  I support those changes here, not there.  I think that we have to secure our side of the world, not theirs.  ...make sure our policies are in place, our borders are safe.

And by doing that, you have the ancillary effect of not getting in people's lives and pissing them off more.


I also believe that there is a fallacy "If we fight them there, we aren't fighting them here."  These cells work independent of central leadership, and I think that whether or not we're at war in Iraq has no effect on terrorism attacks in our borders.  Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like there's no correlation.

I also don't credit this war (or this government...not that I wouldn't) for a lack of attacks since 9/11.  I think that heightened American awareness has been our biggest help in this fight.  Planes aren't going to get hijacked like that anymore, because people know better.  It was unheard of when it happened, but now, we know.

[run_to_win]

A lot of those deaths aren't from Islamic Terrorism, what we're fighting now.  The Oklahoma City bombings, as I'm sure you know, were domestic.  The USS Cole was a military target.

There's link after the OK City bombings.  This is the only website on the net that doesn't display links in a different color.

The Cole was a military target but it was not a time of war, at least not that we were aware of at the time.

I can't speak for all of these incidents, since I'm not intimately familiar.  But it seems that most of them are on foreign soil.

Ignoring the technicality of US Embassies, cruise ships and planes being American soil, it's just a list of American deaths.

[bsmooth]

Now we go back to 11 independent countries all coming to the same conclusion based on their own intelligence.  Perhaps they were all wrong.  And the President's top advisers telling him that it was a "slam dunk".  They could have been wrong too.

Considering in 1991 when we had crushed the Iraqi Army and were on the verge of entering Baghdad, Bush Sr., Powell, and Shwartzkoff all had the forsight to realize by entering and occuping Baghdad, we would be opening up and open ended hornets nest.
Are you trying to tell me we had dumber intel analysts 12 years later when the run up began and they forgot the history of that region and failure rate of western occupiers?
We had more credible threats against this country, and we were already engaged in a war against the radical followers of a government that aided and abetted the leadership of the group that launched the attack against us. There was no reason to go into Iraq until we had fully settled down Afghanistan. Jesus if we could have put just half the troops and money that we have poured into Iraq, into Afghanistan, that country would be much improved, as the people there actually like us there because we are helping them against the repressive regime that was in power before.

[simeon]

Considering in 1991 when we had crushed the Iraqi Army and were on the verge of entering Baghdad, Bush Sr., Powell, and Shwartzkoff all had the forsight to realize by entering and occuping Baghdad, we would be opening up and open ended hornets nest.
Are you trying to tell me we had dumber intel analysts 12 years later when the run up began and they forgot the history of that region and failure rate of western occupiers?
We had more credible threats against this country, and we were already engaged in a war against the radical followers of a government that aided and abetted the leadership of the group that launched the attack against us. There was no reason to go into Iraq until we had fully settled down Afghanistan. Jesus if we could have put just half the troops and money that we have poured into Iraq, into Afghanistan, that country would be much improved, as the people there actually like us there because we are helping them against the repressive regime that was in power before.

Not accurate at all, the reason why we did go into Baghdad the first time is because Saddam agreed to a sease fire agreement with the United Nations which he later broke.

[run_to_win]

Considering in 1991 when we had crushed the Iraqi Army and were on the verge of entering Baghdad, Bush Sr., Powell, and Shwartzkoff all had the forsight to realize by entering and occuping Baghdad, we would be opening up and open ended hornets nest.

You're rewriting history.

The mission was to free Kuwait.  That's what the coalition signed up for.  We would have lost all UN/world backing/support.

There was no reason to go into Iraq until we had fully settled down Afghanistan. Jesus if we could have put just half the troops and money that we have poured into Iraq, into Afghanistan, that country would be much improved, as the people there actually like us there because we are helping them against the repressive regime that was in power before.

All good points. 

Afghanistan WAS pretty much settled down.  We never had a huge number of forces there to occupy and keep it settled down. 

[bsmooth]

You're rewriting history.

The mission was to free Kuwait.  That's what the coalition signed up for.  We would have lost all UN/world backing/support.

All good points. 

Afghanistan WAS pretty much settled down.  We never had a huge number of forces there to occupy and keep it settled down. 

I am not rewriting history. They have said they did not want to push into Baghdad and remove Saddam as it would stir up a hornets nest.
We had an opportunity to lock down Afghanistan after pushing out the Taliban, but instead we allowed them to recoup and come back. We could have prevented this much more if we had not gotten distracted by Iraq.

[simeon]

I am not rewriting history. They have said they did not want to push into Baghdad and remove Saddam as it would stir up a hornets nest.
We had an opportunity to lock down Afghanistan after pushing out the Taliban, but instead we allowed them to recoup and come back. We could have prevented this much more if we had not gotten distracted by Iraq.

I would like to challenge you to provide a link where any of those men said that.
Bush wanted to continue into Iraq but the cease fire stopped all movement of American troops.

[Guru-In-Vegas]

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.[/i]
- George H.W. Bush

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I've heard some express that the current shittiness in Iraq has been wanted since the start.  If I remember correctly it came across that way in the Bush At War book State of Denial.  (I read the book a while ago and chopped into chunks) Rumsfeld wasn't too concerned with stabilizing the country even though it was often times advised that more focus was needed on planning for a post-war Iraq.  The thin numbers deployed there could explain this maybe?  Its not like this is really a surprise to anyone, especially after this was known back in the early 90's. 

One thing is for sure though that no one really mentions much.  The PMC industry sure has blown up. 

[bsmooth]

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
- George H.W. Bush

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I've heard some express that the current shittiness in Iraq has been wanted since the start.  If I remember correctly it came across that way in the Bush At War book State of Denial.  (I read the book a while ago and chopped into chunks) Rumsfeld wasn't too concerned with stabilizing the country even though it was often times advised that more focus was needed on planning for a post-war Iraq.  The thin numbers deployed there could explain this maybe?  Its not like this is really a surprise to anyone, especially after this was known back in the early 90's. 

One thing is for sure though that no one really mentions much.  The PMC industry sure has blown up. 

Sounds like he did not want to stir up a hornets nest.

[run_to_win]

Funny how things change when nukes enter the equation.