Iraq Milestones
A major milestone happened in Iraq recently, but nobody paid it much attention. It's understandable, since there is a lot currently going on to distract both the media and the public, from the Winter Olympics to the Washington health reform "summit" later this week. Even on military matters, the headlines this week will likely be about different subjects, from the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy hearings on Capitol Hill to the progress of a new offensive in Afghanistan. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also be talking about Iraq. Because, for the first time since the war began, there are fewer than 100,000 American troops in Iraq.
Now, there's not much difference militarily between having, say, 102,000 soldiers on the ground and 99,000. But psychologically, it is more important than just using five figures to write the number instead of six. Because it shows that America's withdrawal from Iraq is proceeding as planned -- whether the media notices it or not.
From the current troop level of 96,000, America will gradually withdraw soldiers to reach the real deadline of having only 50,000 left at the end of this August. These 50,000 will then be on schedule to leave before the end of 2011. Meaning the end of the Iraq occupation is almost in sight.
The next milestone for the Iraqis themselves is their national elections, which will be held the first week in March (after being delayed by a couple of months -- they were supposed to have happened in January). How this election happens, and its aftermath, will be critical in keeping to America's withdrawal schedule. For instance, General Ray Odierno just said he has drawn up contingency plans to deal with a swell in election-related violence, which may cause the August target to slip on the withdrawal schedule.
The election itself is already having a few problems. Hundreds of candidates -- mostly Sunni -- have been barred from running for office. The stated reason is that they have past ties to Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, but to an outside observer there is a certain whiff of stacking the deck before the election is even held, especially since not only Sunnis but also non-sectarian party candidates have been tossed off the ballot. Iran's influence in these actions is darkly intimated, and one of the two main Sunni parties (whose main candidate was barred) is already calling for a boycott of the election. No word yet from the Kurds, which is odd because they were one of the major sticking points in getting the election held in the first place. But since the American media has largely left Iraq, less attention has been paid to what is going on there, so I suppose the lack of reporting isn't really surprising. Perhaps some media types will show up for the election itself, in a few weeks.
If a boycott succeeds, and Sunnis refuse to take part in the election, the results will be nowhere near as legitimate as if the entire country had participated. However, just calling for a boycott doesn't mean there will actually be one. The Sunnis boycotted the first round of national elections, and were largely shut out of the halls of power as a result. And they've learned their lesson, it seems, since they did show up for the local elections held last year -- so it will be interesting to see if they show up in significant numbers this time around.
But the real question is not whether Iraq will have a new Prime Minister or not after the election, but whether sectarian attacks will happen in the aftermath. The elections could go better than anyone expects, and go a long way toward solving the seemingly intractable problems of the Sunnis and the Kurds -- but then again, they may solve nothing and leave more anger than before, even to the point of sparking off prolonged sectarian attacks.
Which of these scenarios plays out is the main question the American military will be interested in. America is not so much interested in who wins the election (and who gets which ministerial seat), but in how smoothly the process happens. If relatively little violence happens during and immediately after the election, then the American generals will breathe a sigh of relief and continue their withdrawal from the country. If violence is widespread and ongoing, the withdrawal plans will likely be halted, at least for the time being.
But whichever way things go, American troops have already started coming home, and will continue to do so. Not as quickly as many Americans would like, but in no way any sort of "precipitous withdrawal," as was claimed in the last presidential campaign. President Obama came into office with around 130,000-140,000 American troops in Iraq. Rather than keep to his campaign promise of immediately beginning an 18-month withdrawal, he listened to the Pentagon and took their advice. Obama was also conveniently provided with a hard timetable for withdrawal -- which is where the August and 2011 deadlines came from -- signed by none other than President Bush as he was leaving office (and who had made much political hay out of refusing to even consider such a thing, until he had to actually negotiate a Status Of Forces Agreement with the Iraqis). But still, having said all that, the fact remains that we now have fewer than 100,000 troops in Iraq, and are mostly on schedule to cut that number in half by the end of this summer. Total withdrawal will then be achieved (barring unforeseen circumstances) by the end of next year. As I said, it's not exactly what Obama campaigned on, and it's not fast enough for many critics of the war itself, but I have to at least give Obama credit for the progress made so far on getting American troops out of Iraq.
It's a shame the mainstream media can't be bothered to do so, but that is a whole different problem.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- Chris Weigant
What is really a shame is that the majority of the mainstream media/blogosphere/punditocracy has never had the first clue about what is happening in Iraq or about what will be required for a responsible US withdrawal. But, you're right - that is an entirely other can of worms.
Iraq is going to have many hurdles to jump over the next many years but this election will be a good test as to whether or not they can meet their political challenges without being mired in sectarian violence.
It seems that the main struggle going on in Iraq today is between religious parties, who are now in control of the government, and the secular parties and which group resonates with most Iraqis.
Like any group who hold the reins of power, the religious parties likely won't give it up without a fight - political or otherwise. The ban on hundreds of candidates is not a particularly good sign as to how these elections will shake out.
As it was in 2006-2007, it is undoubtedly not as important when the US withdrawal begins in earnest as how it proceeds, and whether or not there will be a corresponding political track to US policy there. Fortunately, I think President Obama now understands the dynamics of all of this very well.
If chaos results from this election, the US military will not be able to resolve it. The military has long since lost its ability to control or mitigate what happens on the ground in Iraq. Iraqis will have to work toward a sustainable political settlement that will involve the tricky proposition of constitutional reform. In Canada, constitutional reform ranks right up there with hockey as our national game. We have had zero success in reforming our constitution and so I speak from some experience when I say that Iraq will need a lot of help to arrive at the kind of political reconciliation that all Iraqis can live with, literally.
And, that’s why I’m so reassured that Vice President Biden is on top of this file. His ongoing expert and quiet shuttle diplomacy has been invaluable in making sure that chaos has not begun to show its ugly head up until now.
It's a real good thing that President Bush didn't listen to Democrats and went ahead with the surge, eh?? :D
Chalk up ANOTHER win for the Bush Administration..
:D
Michale.....
Of course the media have lost interest in Iraq. Obama's administration has bigger priorities than Iraq, and two of them are currently hot topics. I'm talking, of course, about the jobs bill and healthcare reform.The media need to cover so they can push their own agendas on those topics, be it the right wing media types like Fox and the WSJ or the left wing ones like MSNBC or the NY Times. Of course whether they should be bigger priorities is a whole other argument for a different time and place.
This is the period where I began to worry about the strategy of withdrawal. The fewer troops left behind, the more susceptible they are to attack, and also the more valuable the "target" becomes for groups who want to send a message. I hope I'm wrong, but I've had this nagging feeling in my gut that there will be an attack on the troops just before the final withdrawal.
Having said that, this approach to withdrawal is a lot better than the one Obama campaigned on, which I do believe would have been "precipitous". Thankfully common sense prevailed and Obama listened to the Pentagon's advice. And hey, if they think a safe withdrawal is possible, maybe I'm wrong? As I said, I sincerely hope I am.
The next six months are crucial. We've said that many times in the past but I think this time, that could be true. At the end of that time we'll be at the August deadline and it'll then be for Obama to decide whether to stick to the deadline, even if there is evidence that it would be a bad idea, or whether he'll continue to heed advice. I guess a lot will depend on his poll numbers.
Moderate,
A couple of points ...
On all issues related to Iraq, President Obama listens to Vice President Biden, number one ... and, number two ... whatever happens in Iraq post-election, the US military is not, repeat NOT, in a position to resolve it.
Any excuse that the generals may feel obliged to give Obama to prolong the withdrawal is a very bad idea ... for Iraq, and for everyone else. I thought that had been made crystal clear by now.
And, if anyone thinks this will be dependent on poll numbers, they had better think again!
On all issues related to Iraq, President Obama listens to Vice President Biden, number one ... and, number two ... whatever happens in Iraq post-election, the US military is not, repeat NOT, in a position to resolve it.
The US Military is not in a position to resolve any issues.... NOW..
It WAS capable of handling just about anything, Pre-Withdrawal.
And, if something DOES flare up as Moderate postulates, you can bet a million quatloos that the blame will fall squarely at the feet of Obama and Biden.
And rightly so..
They have been wrong on Iraq at EVERY juncture since the invasion first began in 2003.
Why would ANYONE think they would, all of the sudden, be right??
Michale.....
On all issues related to Iraq, President Obama listens to Vice President Biden
That's what worries me.
whatever happens in Iraq post-election, the US military is not, repeat NOT, in a position to resolve it.
What a lot of people don't realise is that this isn't like the withdrawal from Vietnam. There you had an enemy that was going to stay where it was. Here you're looking at an enemy that's already shown no qualms about attacking the US on its own soil. What if there's evidence that withdrawal would invite an immediate attack on US soil? I'm not saying there is, just that if such evidence were to come to light, Obama would need to take that into consideration.
My point was solely that Obama needs to look at what the evidence is not what he wants it to be. If it supports the withdrawal then that's what he should do, but if it doesn't, he should think twice. I think that's a fairly difficult position to argue with, as it's neutral on withdrawal.
"Reality-based" and all that. I think my earlier comment was actually very non-partisan (And with the exception of the Biden quip, this one is fairly balanced too).
And, if anyone thinks this will be dependent on poll numbers, they had better think again!
Obama's an intelligent man, if the evidence doesn't actually support a withdrawal he won't want to go ahead with it. I don't think he's that stubborn an ideologue; he strikes me as a lot more pragmatic.
But if the polls continue to show support for withdrawal (which I believe they still do) and if his approval/disapproval figures aren't markedly better than they are now, he could be tempted to do something stupid like withdraw even if the evidence doesn't support this decision.
Any politician (Republican or Democrat) would be tempted to override their view of what's best based on poll numbers. Whether they do or not is another point entirely, and note, I never actually said he would, only that he might be tempted to. Hopefully he'll go with what the evidence supports.
Moderate -
Read the article linked to by the second link in my article above -- it makes the same point you do about the next six months.
And I don't think you give Obama much credit. When has he consulted the polls about a military decision? More troops to Afghanistan was not popular (to put it mildly), delaying the withdrawal from Iraq was not popular -- you might argue the "Obama's a pollwatcher" case on domestic issues, but I don't see it as valid on the biggest military decisions he's made. Even ones I don't personally agree with.
As for the August deadline, what you're missing (what a lot of people miss) is that the IRAQIS will be the ones to decide. Bush gave Maliki pretty much eveything he asked for in the SOFA, and the SOFA sets the dates. The only way the US can break those deadlines is if the Iraqi government agrees to it. If violence was widespread and continuing, I could see them agreeing to a continued US presence, but I doubt it'll happen if anything short of chaos breaks out. So it's not Obama, it's not even Bush, it's Maliki (or his successor, depending on the election results) who has the ultimate decision now.
As for anyone in Iraq being capable or desirous of hitting us on our own soil, do you have even a tiny shred of a basis for making this statement? Because it sounds a lot to me like the non-existent existential threat Iraq posed us before we went in.
As for your statement:
My point was solely that Obama needs to look at what the evidence is not what he wants it to be.
But that's exactly what Obama has done so far. He had a campaign promise, he asked the Pentagon, and largely took their advice rather than make some political hay in the polls. He was savaged by the Lefties for doing so, by the way. And I don't expect anything different in the next six months. Obama has -- with the Pentagon's support -- removed 30-40K soldiers from Iraq already. He will remove the next 50K as it is safe to do so, and as conditions on the ground permit. He will meet the August date, unless the US military convinces the Iraqi government otherwise. So what's the complaint? All along, Obama has indeed seen what the situation is, and not what some would like it to be, and made fairly good decisions as a result. He's taken political heat for doing so, but he's stuck to his plans.
So I don't see a rational, reality-based argument that Obama would do any differently in the near future. The withdrawal IS taking place. So far, it has been so orderly and non-newsworthy that the media hasn't even noticed it. The elections will happen, and the plans may have to change slightly, but as far as I've seen, politics doesn't even enter into Obama's equation on this front.
To their credit, for the most part Republicans have supported him in the military efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Quietly, to be sure, but they have indeed supported him so far on the military front, to give credit where credit is due.
-CW
Moderate,
First off, you shouldn’t be worried.
Seriously, you should be grateful that Biden is on top of this. There is no US official who understands the situation in Iraq better or who is more familiar with Iraqi leaders and respected by them. If President Bush had listened to Senator Biden instead of the always bad advice he was receiving from Rumsfeld and Cheney, then he might have left some semblance of a legacy that he could be proud of.
Secondly, the evidence is that US troops in Iraq are now - and have been for quite some time - counterproductive. There is NO military solution to the problems currently facing Iraq, regardless of how many troops there may be on the ground and for how long.
There was a time, however, when more troops were needed and could probably have avoided the disaster that developed after ‘major combat operations in Iraq ended’, around about the middle of 2003. I trust you detected a note of sarcasm there. But, unfortunately, and despite the desperate and persistent calls for more troops by Senator Biden, more troops were not forthcoming. The evidence is that, by about 2005-2006, the idea of more troops was a losing proposition. I do hope that you don’t count yourself among those ill-informed enough to believe that the so-called surge was responsible for decreasing sectarian violence in Iraq. Because, if you do, you are forgetting about a few other major factors that were bringing down the level of violence well before the surge went into effect.
Your contention about the enemy in Iraq having “no qualms about attacking the US on its own soil” and your wondering out loud about whether withdrawal may “invite an immediate attack on US soil” is, quite frankly, nothing short of bizarre.
Michale,
They have been wrong on Iraq at EVERY juncture since the invasion first began in 2003.
Au contraire, ole pal of mine! You have confused Biden and Obama with Cheney and Bush.
CW
As for anyone in Iraq being capable or desirous of hitting us on our own soil, do you have even a tiny shred of a basis for making this statement? Because it sounds a lot to me like the non-existent existential threat Iraq posed us before we went in.
Al Qaeda is in Iraq.
Al Qaeda HAS hit us on our own soil.
Al Qaeda WANTS to hit us again on our own soil.
QED
So I don't see a rational, reality-based argument that Obama would do any differently in the near future.
What's that they say about trading stocks??
"Past performance is not indicative of future performance" or something like that.
Obama has been all over the place in the last several months, since his poll numbers started tanking. It's fully in keeping with reality that his "advisers" (such as they are) would convince Obama to buck sound military advice to play to the polls.
One only has to look at how Obama mishandled McChrystal's advice to know this to be true.
Liz, come on. Wake up and smell reality. Biden and Obama have been wrong about EVERYTHING to do with Iraq. Obama was against it from the start. Biden initially was for it before he was against it. Biden's plan to separate Iraq into "states" was nothing short of moronic. He was trying to apply a plan that has worked in this country for only a couple hundred years to a region that has been in existence for THOUSANDS of years.
It would have been a disaster of EPIC proportions if Biden had had his way..
Plus BOTH Biden and Obama were utterly and completely WRONG about Bush's surge.
And then Biden has the unmitigated audacity to claim that Iraq may be Obama's greatest victory.
Frankly, you really have to admire Biden's chutzpah..
You look at every decision made by Obama and Biden vis a vis Iraq, between 2003 and 2008 and you will not find a single demonstrably correct decision there.
No, future history will show that it was Bush and his administration are the ones who deserve the credit for Iraq.
Obama and Biden will get they blame if they screw it up. Like they have done in Afghanistan.
Michale.....
Michale,
You might be quite surprised to know where al-Qaeda is! You really have to start paying more attention.
And, you still don't know what Biden was advocating for US policy with respect to Iraq. It's not surprising because you are quite obviously relying on what you read throughout the VAST majority of the media/blogosphere/punditocracy. I would suggest that, before you try to apportion blame and credit for Iraq, you first try to find the actual Biden amendment on this which passed the Senate in September of 2007 by an unprecedented margin of 75-23. And, do let me know if you require a link. I'd be more than happy to oblige.
Finally, let's assume, for the sake of further argument, that the surge was wildly successful and responsible for the decrease in violence in Iraq. What else were Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld right about when it comes to US policy in Iraq?
I must warn you that this is a trick question in the sense that the Bush administration did do something in Iraq that was extremely effective. Do you know what that was?
And I don't think you give Obama much credit. When has he consulted the polls about a military decision?
We don't know. All we know is that he overrode the poll numbers. I've not said that he won't do the same again, only that he'll look at them.
But that's exactly what Obama has done so far.
And I did give him credit for doing precisely that.
To their credit, for the most part Republicans have supported him in the military efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
As have I.
I do hope that you don’t count yourself among those ill-informed enough to believe that the so-called surge was responsible for decreasing sectarian violence in Iraq. Because, if you do, you are forgetting about a few other major factors that were bringing down the level of violence well before the surge went into effect.
I've never been a big believer in any one thing being responsible for change on that kind of level. Yes, I think the surge played its role in bringing down the level of violence in Iraq, and I think it would be silly to argue otherwise.
Your contention about the enemy in Iraq having “no qualms about attacking the US on its own soil” and your wondering out loud about whether withdrawal may “invite an immediate attack on US soil” is, quite frankly, nothing short of bizarre.
What Michale said. And in response to your "rebuttal" regarding where al-Qaeda is, you've heard of AQI, right? And you know that their very first act was to swear allegiance to OBL and al-Qaeda? Michale's argument still holds.
Obama has been all over the place in the last several months, since his poll numbers started tanking. It's fully in keeping with reality that his "advisers" (such as they are) would convince Obama to buck sound military advice to play to the polls.
Precisely.
No, future history will show that it was Bush and his administration are the ones who deserve the credit for Iraq.
As I've said all along. In fact I've said history will revise Bush's presidency as they have done for so many in the past. Despite what people may think now, history will record Bush as a great wartime president.
Liz,
You might be quite surprised to know where al-Qaeda is! You really have to start paying more attention.
Yer kidding, right??
I have over two decades in the CT field.. I am fairly sure that I know what is what and who is who and who is where.. :D
I have heard the spin of Biden's plan and I know the reality.
And the simple fact is, Biden has NEVER been correct on anything to do with Iraq up until recently when he tried to take credit for the actions of President Bush.
Finally, let's assume, for the sake of further argument, that the surge was wildly successful
One doesn't HAVE to "assume" that. The factual evidence is clear for all to see. Hell, even Biden admits it was "wildly successful". Why else would he be trying to take credit for it??
What else were Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld right about when it comes to US policy in Iraq?
Apparently they were right from A to Z..
Which is not to say that mistakes weren't made. Of course, mistakes were made. It's called war. It never goes according to nice, neat sound bites that politicians love so much.
There is an old saying amongst military officers..
No battle plan EVER survives contact with the enemy.
But, the proof is in the pudding..
Hussein is toast and Iraq is well on it's way to democracy...
The details might have been screwy for a time or two and there might have been a hiccup or two along the way but, as another old saying tells us:
Nothing succeeds like success
And Iraq is a clear mark in the WIN column for the Bush Administration.
The only thing that is undecided is if the Obama Administration will royally frak things up as they are wont to do.....
I must warn you that this is a trick question in the sense that the Bush administration did do something in Iraq that was extremely effective. Do you know what that was?
The Bush administration did MANY things in Iraq that was effective...
Not the least of which......
WE WON
The Iraqis Won..
What more do ya want???
Moderate,
As I've said all along. In fact I've said history will revise Bush's presidency as they have done for so many in the past. Despite what people may think now, history will record Bush as a great wartime president.
Truer words were never spoken..
While I doubt Bush will rank up their with Reagan and his dismantling of the Soviet Union, he (Bush) will run a close second for a very impressive feat..
0 terrorist attacks on US proper, post 9/11.. For those in the cheap seats, that's ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NONE...
This is a "keeper stat" (as they say in the NFL) that simply cannot be argued..
Michale....
Michale,
Zero terrorist attacks post-9/11. Should Bush be responsible for a terrorist attack on 9/11? He was President though according to conservative history his Presidency might be from 9/11/01 -
I don't think so. But I bring this up because this is the standard it seems conservatives would hold a Democrat to. I think this is ridiculous. As security experts recognize, it is impossible to 100% prevent terrorist attacks.
And I'm not so sure that we "won" as you say. Many here in the U.S. seem to run around afraid of their own shadow seeing terrorists behind every corner. Isn't this the goal of terrorism?
Our economy is a giant mess.
We also seem to have created more terrorists than ever before leading to a greater likelihood of a terrorist attack.
-David
p.s. Are you sure al-Qaeda's not in your kitchen while you're blogging from your underground bunker? Best go check the Cheetos :)
Zero terrorist attacks post-9/11. Should Bush be responsible for a terrorist attack on 9/11? He was President though according to conservative history his Presidency might be from 9/11/01 -
Bush is "responsible" insofar as he was the POTUS when the attacks occurred.
However, as the facts clearly show, Clinton shares considerable responsibility for 9/11.
But, as the say... Hindsight is 20/20....
As security experts recognize, it is impossible to 100% prevent terrorist attacks.
Which makes President Bush's success rate Post-911 all the more incredible.
And I'm not so sure that we "won" as you say. Many here in the U.S. seem to run around afraid of their own shadow seeing terrorists behind every corner. Isn't this the goal of terrorism?
Do you honestly feel that way?? I know that I don't.
But there is a difference between terrified and prudence.
You don't poke around in a electrical fuse box with a metal pole while standing in a bucket of water..
Do you NOT do this because you are terrified???
Of course not.. You don't do it because it is moronic...
Many actions that Americans take these days are not due to being terrified, as you would attribute them to, but rather simply being prudent..
Are you sure al-Qaeda's not in your kitchen while you're blogging from your underground bunker? Best go check the Cheetos :)
Are you implying that AQ is no longer a threat??
Then why is Obama summarily executing people in Afghanistan and Pakistan??
Let me guess...
Obama is killing them over there so they won't kill us here, right??
Geee... Where have I heard that notion before??
Oh yea, that's right... From President Bush...
Michale.....
Ooops... I missed this one...
We also seem to have created more terrorists than ever before leading to a greater likelihood of a terrorist attack.
So, you are saying that, if we had done things to appease terrorists, they would quit being terrorists??
And your proof for this completely unfounded and totally illogical statement is.... what exactly??
Michale.....
What ya'all simply don't grasp about the fanatical terrorist mindset is that it doesn't NEED a reason to commit the atrocities..
You say that Abu Grahbi created hundreds of more terrorists...
I say that is bullshit...
Because if there HADN'T been an Abu Grahbi or a Gitmo than the terrorist powers-that-be would have simply made up a Gitmo or an Abu Grahbi and the fanatic terrorist mindset would have accepted it as reality.
Do you see the point??
To the fanatical terrorist mindset, it doesn't matter what the US does or doesn't do...
The US could dress it's soldiers in pink underwear with purple polka dots and send them out in the field only armed with tadaisies...
The fanatical terrorist mindset would STILL see the "Great Satan" that their leaders had brainwashed into them...
So, the claim that Gitmo or Abu Grahbi has created more terrorists is just so much meta-physical unprovable bullshit...
It's like the Obama Administration claiming that the Porkulus created and saved millions of jobs..
It's 'vaporware'... Completely unprovable and utterly meta-physical, with ZERO connection to the real world..
Terrorists don't NEED a reason to hate, to kill, to butcher..
They sooner ya'all drop the ACLU "oh poor misunderstood baby" attitude, the sooner ya'all can realize that there IS evil in the world..
And no amount of Dr Phil/Oprah crap will change that...
Michale.....
Michale,
This Bud's for you ...
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:sc37is.txt.pdf
The next time you need a link, all you have to do is ask. :)
Moderate,
As I've said all along. In fact I've said history will revise Bush's presidency as they have done for so many in the past. Despite what people may think now, history will record Bush as a great wartime president.
There's a name for that, you know ... I believe they call it revisionist history. And, I'm sure you're right about one thing - there will be plenty of it.
I'm sorry Moderate - please forgive my ignorance - and explain to me in very simple terms why Bush will be seen as a great wartime president.
There's a name for that, you know ... I believe they call it revisionist history. And, I'm sure you're right about one thing - there will be plenty of it.
"I’m happy to thank George Bush"
-Vice President Joe Biden on Iraq
Michale.....
As for the passed Senate Resolution...
Nothing but a Bush Bashing warm and fuzzy for Democrats and some Republicans.
While it's true that saying "Iraq is a mess" in 2007 was, technically, accurate it's like saying that it's windy and rainy in New Orleans at the height of Katrina.
It's a "no shit, Sherlock" moment.
What did that warm and fuzzy Resolution actually accomplish??
However, just for you, I will amend my earlier statement. :D
Obama and Biden had never been right on anything that mattered that had to do with Iraq.
Obama was against it from the start.
He was wrong.
Obama and Biden were against President Bush's surge.
They were wrong.
That is really all that matters.
Michale.....
Michale,
You are quite beyond hope ... and, certainly, beyond my rapidly diminishing level of patience.
But, it's been fun. Sort of.
You are quite beyond hope ... and, certainly, beyond my rapidly diminishing level of patience.
I completely understand... :D
Here's hoping we're both around in 100 years to see what Bush's legacy will be..
I promise I'll refrain from saying, "Told ya so.." :D
Michale.....
M-
So, you are saying that, if we had done things to appease terrorists, they would quit being terrorists??
We should have gone after the terrorists, not invaded a country that had little to do with them.
-D
p.s. Terrorists ... terrorists ... terrorists ... they're in your bed. With their fanatical mindset. There's millions of them. Billions. Crawling everywhere. And they're coming to get us. They're savages and bite the heads off of babies. They will stop at nothing. *cue ominous music*
(Methinks someone has been watching too much 24. Go visit another country. Actually talk to the people. I think you'll find the vast majority very similar to us. There's really very few terrorists despite how often they appear on TV. But boy do they make a great political tool - scare the people enough and you can do just about anything you want.)
David,
We should have gone after the terrorists, not invaded a country that had little to do with them.
All things being equal, I would agree.
However, we are not privy to the information that President Bush had. There might have been overriding concerns that we knew nothing about.
Unlikely, to be sure, but possible nonetheless..
(Methinks someone has been watching too much 24.
Yea, many people said I read too much Tom Clancy... Then 9/11 happened..
Go visit another country.
Been there, done that... Got the T-Shirt..
Actually talk to the people. I think you'll find the vast majority very similar to us.
Who's talking about "people"??
We're talking about terrorists..
There's really very few terrorists despite how often they appear on TV.
And you know this..... How exactly???
Don't tell me, let me guess.. Janeane Garafalo told you, right?? :D
But boy do they make a great political tool - scare the people enough and you can do just about anything you want.)
You mean, like CrapCare?? :D
At least, with terrorists and terrorism, the threat is undeniably and demonstrably real...
Michale......
The PollyAnna types in this country never want to believe the threat is real.
Ironically enough, after a terrorist attact, they are usually the first ones that start whining and bitching that the government didn't do enough to prevent the attack.
Michale.....
Hahahah - you should be working for Charles Atlas, Michale :)
Think of the 2 issues in terms of statistics and scope:
- We threw over a trillion dollars at invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 creating huge animosity against us in the Muslim world and making us more likely to be attacked by terrorists. We could have spent far less to simply pursue the terrorists when the whole world was on our side. But we don't seem to be at odds here so I won't belabor the point.
- By comparison, here in the U.S., not many deny that there is an issue with healthcare. 45 million are uninsured and costs are rising making it tremendously difficult on small to medium-sized businesses and directly impacting our economy. This isn't over-inflating the issue like people do with the threat of terrorism.
Statistically speaking, far more people will die from a lack of health insurance in this country than from terrorist attacks. But terrorism is a much more - apologies about the term - glamorous subject in our national conscious and media.
It's kind of like plane crashes vs. automobile accidents. Which is much more likely to happen? Deaths through auto accidents. But which causes the most sensation? A plane crash.
This is why in terms of priority, I believe Obama has things right. However politically unpopular it is.
And I'm saying this even though you know my views on the current healthcare proposal :) - another subject entirely.
I just think we to keep the issues in perspective instead of dramatizing the threat.
Cheers
David
- We threw over a trillion dollars at invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 creating huge animosity against us in the Muslim world and making us more likely to be attacked by terrorists.
There again, you imply that the US actions actually have an impact on the terrorist mindset..
Do you have any evidence to support that idea??
Regardless, we agree that Iraq wasn't the best way to go vis a vis the war against terrorists..
But it was undoubtedly the right thing to do..
But, let's get past that.. We agree that the Iraq Campaign didn't help and probably hurt the war against terrorists...
As far as the rest..
Yes, Obama has the right idea insofar that Health Care is a problem that needs to be addressed..
But he is going about it all wrong..
And he STILL fraks up the war against terrorism..
Michale.....
I have personal experience that says otherwise...
There again, you imply that the US actions actually have an impact on the terrorist mindset.
I did no such thing.
I stated that the war has the effect of creating more animosity and makes it easier for terrorists to recruit.
Are you arguing that we can send thousands of troops to invade other countries, fire missiles at people we think might - repeat, might - be terrorists, kill countless civilians along the way, and then think the people we're bombing won't be angry at us?
Because this would be like a person who eats too much being surprised when he gets fat.
All I'm getting at and where I think we agree is that this element of our foreign policy makes it easier for terrorists to recruit.
-David
p.s. And I'm with you that the current HC plan is quite lacking.
I stated that the war has the effect of creating more animosity and makes it easier for terrorists to recruit.
But yet, you cite NO evidence to support the claim..
Are you arguing that we can send thousands of troops to invade other countries, fire missiles at people we think might - repeat, might - be terrorists, kill countless civilians along the way, and then think the people we're bombing won't be angry at us?
Have you ever been angry?? Really REALLY angry?? Angry enough to start butchering innocent men, women and children??
I honestly doubt it.. I know I have NEVER been THAT angry...
People that would get THAT angry would be already pre-disposed to start butchering innocent men, women and children..
This is the point that you simply cannot (or WILL not) grasp..
Terrorists don't need a reason to hate, a reason to kill...
At most, the actions of the US provide a convenient excuse...
All I'm getting at and where I think we agree is that this element of our foreign policy makes it easier for terrorists to recruit.
And I am telling you that there is simply NO empirical evidence to support such a claim..
At most, you have a bunch of theory written by people who write such opinions from the safety and comfort of office chairs and such and, if ever confronted with the actions of a REAL terrorist, they would pee themselves and run screaming and crying to the government to protect them...
And I'm with you that the current HC plan is quite lacking
Are you watching the summit?? GOP is really nailing the nails into the Democrats CrapCare coffin...
Michale.....
Like CrapCare, the issue of terrorists is probably a bridge too far for us...
Ya'all view terrorists are misunderstood people who just need some love and tenderness and all will be good and right with the world..
I view terrorists as sub-human cockroaches who do not deserve any rights, decency or respect..
What galls me is that ya'alls view is based on what you hear and what you read...
My view is based on what I have lived and what I have done...
In other words, ya'all believe what you believe because you THINK it is true.
I believe what I believe because I have lived it and breathed it for over 2 decades.
That's why I get a little intransigent in our discussions here.
Ya'all talk theory..
I speak experience...
Michale.....
Easy there, Jack Bauer ...
Wasn't it you who sent out that definition of terrorism that included ideology as a justification?
Terrorists kill for ideological reasons. Psychopaths kill without justification. Very different.
Michale- you live in Florida. Let's say us Ohioans bombed Florida because we thought you were restricting the flow of oranges or something. In the process, we kill your brother, who has nothing to do with the orange trade.
Now, knowing you, you would retaliate. You wouldn't think of it as killing "innocent men, women and children". You would think of it as killing "sub-human cockroaches who do not deserve any rights, decency or respect" because they killed your brother.
The terrorist mindset is able to completely de-humanize its victims by elevating something above human life.
If you're able to see people as "sub-human cockroaches" because they blew up the World Trade Center, don't you think there are those on the other side who could see us as "sub-human cockroaches" because we bombed the shit out of their civilians?
-David
Easy there, Jack Bauer ...
I've been called worse.. :D
David Axelrod, for instance.. :D
Terrorists kill for ideological reasons. Psychopaths kill without justification. Very different.
Does the difference matter to the dead??
"A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."
-Captain Spock
Now, knowing you, you would retaliate. You wouldn't think of it as killing "innocent men, women and children". You would think of it as killing "sub-human cockroaches who do not deserve any rights, decency or respect" because they killed your brother.
No, I would not... I might go after the scumbag who perpetrated the crime and those that helped (no matter how inconsequential) the scumbag...
But I would not resort to terrorism..
No sane or civilized person would.
With respect to Moderate, nothing, I repeat NOTHING, justifies terrorism..
Terrorism itself does not justify terrorism in response..
NOTHING..... JUSTIFIES..... TERRORISM...
The terrorist mindset is able to completely de-humanize its victims by elevating something above human life.
The difference between them and me is that my "de-humanization" of terrorists is justified by their actions..
It's the difference between a cop who shoots a scumbag in defense of others and the mob hitman who kills for fun and profit.
If you're able to see people as "sub-human cockroaches" because they blew up the World Trade Center, don't you think there are those on the other side who could see us as "sub-human cockroaches" because we bombed the shit out of their civilians?
I am sure that terrorists see their actions as justified...
They question is.... Why do you??
Michale.....
Michale - Huh?
Ok, since that question obviously makes no sense as I said nothing of the sort I'm going to return to the argument at hand.
So you would go after the scumbag who perpetrated the crime. Exactly. Me too. That's why we should have gone after the scumbags who perpetrated the crime.
Instead, we invaded another country and killed lots of civilians. Far more than died in the World Trade Center bombing.
So let's say there are some people similar to you in Iraq. I'll call them al-Michales (if this were Arrested Development and I were narrating, I'd be wondering whether I should help out the audience w/ this joke or just continue to make oblique references).
Many of these al-Michales in Iraq ask themselves, why is the U.S. invading us? We had nothing to do with 9/11. It makes no sense to them. The act seems senseless. Very much like 9/11 did to us. To these al-Michales, arm-chair quarterbacks that they are (ok, maybe not a good enough reference), we seem like terrorists. Invading their country and lying about the reason why. And killing thousands of innocent civilians.
"Why don't you go after the terrorists?" they ask. And why saddle me with Boomer Esiason? (Al hated Boomer. Dan Dierdorf even more.)
Then, someone labels us as invaders and infidels and this seems to make sense to them. They see us with strong ties to Israel and it is very easy to see us as anti-Islamic. Especially with all the Christian rhetoric coming from the U.S. It's very easy then for some of the lunier al-Michales to recruit and convince these folks that they are acting in self-defense of Islam and instill some of the crazier ideology about going to heaven if you kill infidels etc.
The al-Michales on their side see it as a "War on Terror". U.S. terror and unjustified aggression. And as the U.S. Michales have said, everything is justified in a "War on Terror".
These scumbags and the scumbags who helped them "do not deserve any decency, rights, or respect".
'm sure they don't see what they're doing as unjust. Just as you don't see the Iraq War as unjust even though far more civilians have died and you admitted it wasn't a good move in the "War on Terrorism".
Did you know that in our War of Independence, the British considered us terrorists because we hid behind trees and shot at them? We didn't line up and come at each other as civilized folk would at the time. Well, of course we didn't. They had better weaponry and training than we did. And we knew we'd get massacred if we did. So we shot at them from behind trees because it was all we had.
I believe we called ourselves Freedom Fighters. I believe the British called us uncivilized.
Keep in mind, I'm not saying any of this is right. All I'm trying to say is that it's very easy for people to take advantage of beliefs people have to convince them that what they are doing is just. Don't you think their "Freedom Fighters" feel just as justified as ours?
- David
With respect to Moderate, nothing, I repeat NOTHING, justifies terrorism..
Well, I've been rethinking that and wondering if I was clear enough in framing my view. What I meant by "justified" terrorism is terrorism on civilian property that's not designed to kill civilians, and is in response to terrorism.
Not sure if the word "justified" is appropriate, but I can't think of a better one. I've just never considered property on a par with human life.
Did you know that in our War of Independence, the British considered us terrorists because we hid behind trees and shot at them?
We're still bitter about that one too...those damned uncouth Americans ;-)
I believe we called ourselves Freedom Fighters. I believe the British called us uncivilized.
I doubt we were that polite. Although, to be fair, as I said on the other post on terrorism, I'm not sure being a Freedom Fighter means you can't also be considered a terrorists. For the IRA, for example, both terms are apt, and as a Brit I'd have to say the same tags apply to the American revolutionaries.
Sure, we've gotten over it, but I doubt the men at the time did.
Don't you think their "Freedom Fighters" feel just as justified as ours?
They could do. I'm just not sure them being freedom fighters means they're not also terrorists. Or that their perception of being justified makes them so.
They could do. I'm just not sure them being freedom fighters means they're not also terrorists. Or that their perception of being justified makes them so.
I'm not either. Just trying to say that it could very well depend which side your on as to who are the "Freedom Fighters" and who the "Terrorists". Great case in point with the IRA - I'm sure they consider themselves freedom fighters.
You mean how "History is written by the victors"? Yeah, I can agree with that.
So you would go after the scumbag who perpetrated the crime. Exactly. Me too. That's why we should have gone after the scumbags who perpetrated the crime.
Instead, we invaded another country and killed lots of civilians. Far more than died in the World Trade Center bombing.
You are repeating a point that we already agreed on..
Yes, Iraq was a distraction from the war against terrorists..
It still was the right thing to do, but it was a distraction..
Let's move past that.
You seem to be saying with the rest of your comments that terrorists see themselves as being justified in their actions.
B F D
Which, leads to my previous question, slightly amended..
Do YOU see the terrorists actions as justified?
I am sure your answer is "no" or maybe even "hell no"..
Assuming this is the case, then this begs another question.
What does it matter WHAT terrorists think???
Put it in another context...
I am sure there are pedophiles out there who think their actions are justified because they are befriending children.
Who cares WHAT they think. They are still scumbags..
Don't you think their "Freedom Fighters" feel just as justified as ours?
Hamas has killed more Palestinians than they have killed Israelis... How does that fit into your "they think of themselves as Freedom Fighters" meme??
Regardless, it's irrelevant what they think.. Knowing or understanding their motivations is not necessary to label them as sub-human cockroaches..
Keep in mind that we are NOT talking about people who are upset with military action and who bitch and moan about this and that..
We are talking about monsters who murder hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
Ya'all seem to be falling into the age old pile of crap that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
That is THE biggest piles of crap of ALL the piles of crap there are in the world.
A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. Period.
My previous mention of Hamas is a perfect example of the fallibility of such a concept.
Many Palestinians and even many on the Left here in the US fancies Hamas as "freedom fighters". Yet these "freedom fighters" have killed more of their own people than they have killed the enemy.
A freedom fighter goes out of their way to avoid innocent casualties.
A terrorist goes out of their way to INFLICT innocent casualties.
Michale....
A freedom fighter goes out of their way to avoid innocent casualties.
A terrorist goes out of their way to INFLICT innocent casualties.
Good point. How does that tie in with the IRA, who used to give warnings for some of their attacks to avoid innocent civilian casualties? Although it was way before my time, Chris says that in the early days they didn't give warnings.
Were they, therefore, terrorists first, who later became freedom fighters?
Michale-
Of course I don't see the folks who bombed the WTC actions as justified.
Yet you still see our actions in Iraq as justified. My point, is that to the Iraqis and to much of the rest of the world, we are the ones in the wrong.
The fact that we have little moral justification allows terrorists to easily recruit new members.
1. We started the war in Iraq
2. It wasn't to fight terrorism (the terrorists were elsewhere)
3. We killed thousands of civilians in a power grab "war"
You seem to be saying, Michale, and please correct me if I'm wrong that our actions are always justified so long as we don't target civilians. We can invade whoever we want, kill as many civilians as we want, so long as we don't target civilians.
What I'm getting at is that I don't believe we can morally justify our power grabs using the guise of "fighting terror".
When we do this, we lend credibility to the terrorist argument. That they are fighting a war against invaders. We, in a sense, enable them in their "freedom fighter" role. We make it easier for them to recruit.
A better way to fight terrorism would be, as you've said, to go after the terrorists.
-David
Were they, therefore, terrorists first, who later became freedom fighters?
That's another gray area that I concede...
On the one hand, I am of the firm opinion that once a terrorist, always a terrorist.. In this regard, I am not much the forgiving type.
On the other hand, I acknowledge the concept of redemption..
So I am somewhat torn..
David,
Yet you still see our actions in Iraq as justified.
Yes, our actions in Iraq were justified but for different reasons then the war against terrorists.
We removed a scumbag psychotic who was brutalizing and terrorizing his own people..
1. We started the war in Iraq
Saddam Hussein was an angel and totally blameless. Is THAT your contention??
2. It wasn't to fight terrorism (the terrorists were elsewhere)
Agreed...
That doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do..
3. We killed thousands of civilians in a power grab "war"
You think that Iraq was a "power grab"??
Cite your evidence??
The SUPER LOW gas prices we are seeing??? :^/
You seem to be saying, Michale, and please correct me if I'm wrong that our actions are always justified so long as we don't target civilians.
Not exclusively, but that's close..
Are you saying that you would be happier if Saddam was still in power brutalizing his people and raping and killing whomever he wished?
Is THAT what you are saying??
We can invade whoever we want, kill as many civilians as we want, so long as we don't target civilians.
Like it or not, the USA is the world's policeman. So, yes.. If we decide that a dictator is brutalizing and victimizing his people, then we go in...
Do you have a problem with what Clinton did in Kosovo??
No???
Then why the beef with what Bush did in Iraq???
Regardless, I have already conceded that the Iraq campaign was a distraction in the war against terrorists..
But what you appear to refuse to concede is that it STILL was the right thing to do..
Michale.....
Yes, Michale. I have a beef with Bush lying our way into war. We lost our moral standing, we enabled terrorists, and we created a giant cluster #@$%
Clinton handled Kosovo differently. Clinton made his case against the Serbs based on evidence of ethnic cleansing. He built international support and we went in in a fashion that did not further terrorism.
If Bush wanted to remove Saddam for being a ruthless dictator, he should have presented this evidence and this should have been his case for war. Instead he used 9/11.
Quite simple really.
-David
Yes, Michale. I have a beef with Bush lying our way into war. We lost our moral standing, we enabled terrorists, and we created a giant cluster #@$%
Do you have a problem with ALL presidents lying??
Or just Bush??
Regardless, it's been established by three different bi-partisan commissions that Bush did not lie..
Being wrong does not a lie make.
One would have thought this point would have been driven home over and over (and over and over) again with President Obama..
Clinton handled Kosovo differently. Clinton made his case against the Serbs based on evidence of ethnic cleansing. He built international support and we went in in a fashion that did not further terrorism.
Yer kidding, right??
A> You haven't made ANY case for your theory that the US has created more terrorists..
and
2> You don't think that Clinton's actions caused more people in that region to hate the US??
So, let me see if I got this straight...
You have the same action committed by a Democratic President and a Republican President.
The action by the Democratic President fosters love and goodwill throughout the entire world, but the same action by a Republican President creates terrorists all over the world..
Is THAT your contention???
And your supporting evidence is....... what exactly??
If Bush wanted to remove Saddam for being a ruthless dictator, he should have presented this evidence and this should have been his case for war. Instead he used 9/11.
That was Bush's mistake. Although the issue of WMDs was the primary reason for Iraq War II... The 9/11 connection, while present, was too tenuous to be a logical primary reason for ousting Hussein..
So, what you are saying is that Bush did the right thing for the wrong reason...
OK, I can agree with you on that....
Quite simple really.
Iddn't it?? :D
Michale......
Clinton and Bosnia. Hmmm. Well ... that one seemed to have worked out pretty well. Don't hear many awful things about Bosnia lately, anyways. No Serbs attacking us. The more I think about the more it seems to me that this is a great example of how to go about removing a dictator if and when we decide to do it.
Thanks for bringing that up and giving Clinton credit where credit is due.
Not that I agree with you about being the "world's policeman". But if the situation merits, we should at least do it right.
By comparison, the Bush administration was quite clumsy in their efforts. I can't think of many things he didn't bungle. But, to give him credit, he was just as good at bungling the wrong thing as he was at bungling the right thing.
- David