On Meet the Press, NY Times' Brooks admitted to pulling number of possible Iraqi deaths "out of the air"
On the July 22 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, discussing the number of Iraqis that could be killed following a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country, New York Times columnist David Brooks asked "are we willing to prevent 10,000 Iraqi deaths a month at the cost of 125 Americans?" Brooks initially tried to attribute the "10,000" figure to New York Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns and the National Intelligence Estimate, but later admitted, "I just picked out 10,000 out of the air."
Earlier in the program, host Tim Russert had quoted Burns, who said during the July 21 edition of PBS' Charlie Rose, "It seems to me incontrovertible that the most likely outcome of an American withdrawal anytime soon would be cataclysmic violence, and I find that to be widely agreed amongst Iraqis, including Iraqis who widely opposed the invasion and especially amongst Sunnis."
Later in the show, Brooks said: "Well if we leave, we could see 250,000 Iraqis die -- you had the John Burns quotation earlier in the program. So are we willing to prevent 10,000 Iraqi deaths a month at the cost of 125 Americans?" Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward challenged Brooks: "[T]he problem, though, is we don't know [what will happen in Iraq following a redeployment of U.S. troops]. People can say 'Oh, it's going to be a disaster,' I mean you've -- you cite numbers which are pulled out of the air -- '10,000 dying' -- I mean that's -- where does that come from?" When Brooks replied, "A, it comes from John Burns and, second, it comes from National Intelligence --" Woodward pointed out, "But [Burns] doesn't say 10,000."
In response, Brooks stated, "Well, no. No, but it talks about genocide, so I just picked out 10,000 out of the air. But the National Intelligence Estimate says that -- well, most people, as Burns reports, say it will get much, much worse. So that's the dilemma."
As Brooks acknowledged, neither Burns nor the NIE provided a numerical estimate.
From the July 22 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: Is there any way to achieve, in Washington, a bipartisan consensus on what to do about Iraq?
BROOKS: It's based upon this unknown: I don't think there's any possibility that within five years that we're going to see a drastic diminution of violence. So we could be losing 125 Americans every month for five years. On the other hand --
WOODWARD: I mean that's politically impossible --
BROOKS: But, so you think "OK, get out." On the other hand, if we leave --
WOODWARD: No, glide plane [reference to earlier discussion] --
BROOK: Well if we leave, we could see 250,000 Iraqis die -- you had the John Burns quotation earlier in the program. So are we willing to prevent 10,000 Iraqi deaths a month at the cost of 125 Americans?
That's a tough moral issue, but it's also a tough national interest issue, because we don't know what the consequences of getting out are. And the frustration of watching the debate in Washington, very few people are willing to grapple with those two facts: that there's gonna -- the surge will not work in the short term, but getting out will be cataclysmic. And you see politicians on both sides evading one of those two facts, but you've got to grapple with them both.
STEPHEN F. HAYES (Weekly Standard senior writer): And one of the things that the president said at this session that David was at and I was at as well was that he intends to make the case that, "Look, this going to be a disaster if we get out." He didn't say it in exactly those terms, but I think he's going to start making in many cases the negative case: "Look at what Iraq will look like if we leave. We have a moral obligation to the Iraqis to stay."
WOODWARD: And the problem, though, is we don't know. People can say, "Oh, it's going to be a disaster." I mean, you've -- you cite numbers which are pulled out of the air -- "10,000 dying" -- I mean that's -- where does that come from?
BROOKS: Well, A, it comes from John Burns and, second, it comes from National Intelligence --
WOODWARD: But he doesn't say 10,000.
BROOKS: Well, no. No, but it talks about genocide, so I just picked out 10,000 out of the air. But the National Intelligence Estimate says that -- well, most people, as Burns reports, say it will get much, much worse. So that's the dilemma.
well, speaks well for journalistic integrity, spend four years in college and this is the result ?
So, what's the number of Iraqi deaths that's acceptable to the "cut and run" surrender crowd?
you are a stupid biped
Mere insults won't do any good. Answer the question, if you can/care to? Otherwise, your disregard for Iraqi civilian lives will be plain for all to see.
Odd that you would say that, since it is conservatives who seem to think that we're losing in Iraq because we're "holding back". In case you didn't know, we're "holding back" to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties.
Answer this, how many Iraqis have to die before you consider our mission completed?
With your flawed logic, a million Iraqi's could die before anonimous posters use the rant : cut and run . Didn't work for Bush and it isn't going to work for you. Go get your GED. It is only $49.
"Otherwise, your disregard for Iraqi civilian lives will be plain for all to see.."
Lesson 1: Neocon projection strategy.
Again the stupid argument that though more than 80% of the Iraqis want us gone we have to stay there for THEIR own good. We dont care beans what you Iraqis want we are going to help you with our 150,000 troops whether you like it or not.
"To those who believe that if the U.S. troops leave there will be chaos, I say, let them go, and if we fight each other afterwards, let us do that. We are being killed by the thousands already.", an Iraqi.
How many Iraqi civilians have to die BEFORE US troops finally leave their country?
Thanks for everybody who responded to my original post. Appreciate your thoughts even if I may not agree with your reasons.For the record - I was ALWAYS against this war in Iraq. It was an immoral, unilateral action that was pushed using selective, and probably fraudulent, intelligence. This was should have never happened. This being said, I wish some of you would consider the results of the US (and UK) pulling out of Iraq at this point. Based on the current chaos there, this will result in geater genocide and a wider Shia-Sunni war in the Middle East.IMO, any withdrawal at this point will be counterproductive to the interests of the US and of the Middle East - be they political, economic, or social.
You dont KNOW it will be counterproductive. It will LEAD to what is already happening? There isnt anything WE can do to help this situation we have no credibility as occupiers to rectify the situation. There are certainly risks but since we DID invade we have nothing but bad choices left. The sectrarian violence monster is already out of the box, we cant shove it back in and us being there isnt stopping it. At least we can take out OUR contribution to the equation of violence. They wont solve their problems as long as WE are occupying them.
What makes you think Genghiz is smart enough to walk upright?
Yeah, I know. what he wrote had nothing to do with anything written above his post. If i ever needed proof the Rove Robot Stormtroopers existed, it was handed to us in a silver platter.
So what is the number of deaths you are hoping for in the warmonger lets get as many Americans killed as we possibly can crowd?
Ghenko, how many American lives is George Bush's ego worth?
Gengwiz, I will be happy to answer your question but, unlike your ilk, I need some reliable information. What exactly is the "cut and run surrender" crowd? I do not seem to understand this particular combination of bumper stickers. I also need a lead-in from you. How many American soldiers must be killed before we decide that we must let the Iraqis fight their own battles? (Question, why does 10,000 Iraqis seem to be a number you agree with and 125 Americans is also agreeable to you?) I submit that American deaths would be 500 or more a month. Is that okay with you? Please help me and we can discuss this further.
Is GENGHIZ willing to risk his life or the lives of his own family members to prevent more Iraqi deaths?
Talk is cheap.
Zero. No death is acceptable... not one American death (of say my friends, neighbors, relatives) and not one Iraqi death.
But staying isn't stopping the Iraqis from killing each other. Why are you so intent on killing your fellow citizens only to prop up Shrub?
So, what's the number of Iraqi deaths that's acceptable to the "cut and run" surrender crowd? -Genghiz
Since I don’t consider myself a “member" of the “cut and run” surrender crowd that’s a questions I can’t answer.
I consider myself a “member” of the “REALITY” crowd. I consider myself a member of the “common sense” crowd.
May I assume that you are a “member” of the “stay the course” “didn’t have a plan and still don’t have a plan” “can’t define winning” crowd.
Since you want to keep killing men and women on a daily basis I suggest you have an explanation to 1,105 American families who have already died between June 06 and June 07 why “staying the course“ was the best plan. Get ready to explain to their children why Daddy/Mommy didn’t make it home for Father’s/Mother's Day cause your “plan” for “winning” needed just a little more time and few more lives. Get ready to explain to at least 200 more families why they had to die so that we could wait for “the Sept. report” that is going to tell us how little progress has been made and how many more will have to die till the next “report” comes out. Explain to them how “staying the course” has benefited them. Explain to them how “we are winning”. You call people who want a reality check "surrendering" and I call those who continue to "stay the course" premeditated murders". You know they are going to die and you won’t do a damn thing to try to change to outcome. Any shame belongs to you.
Right-winger's posturing that they care about Iraqi civilian deaths all of a sudden. The hypocricy is beyond neaueating. Both in the media and with the people I know, the raw happiness the invasion caused was obvious. Any talk of sparing lives at that point was lost in the tumult of cheers and bad country music. Anyone else remember "I rock, I rack em up and I roll?" Anyone else remember Fox 'News' showing replays of the bombing of Baghdad set to a rousing musical score? War Porn. At that point the righties only cared about keeping images of the kids being killed off the tv so they could keep the good ratings going for their war. I swear it's beyond belief that they could use some fake pose of compassion at this point to try to prolong their war.
I've known for a long time that David Brooks pulls his facts from somewhere besides his brain. This would be conceding that he has a brain of course. I'm tryin g to be charitable:
That nice Dave Brooks has so much care
For Iraq's casualties, that he swears
That if we leave the place
More death will be the case
Though his numbers come from thin air
If we exit, on "gut" Brooks relies.
That PEACE might result, he denies.
The resolve of this mess
all he bets on his guess
are the lives and the blood of our guys.
What's that smell?
Brooks' figure came from the go-to place for "facts" most favored by 'wingers when they find the truth inconvenient.
You don't have to hear or see them to know where they came from.
You can smell 'em.
Straight from the BBB, the Bureau of Brooks Butt
When you are in the Rove Boys Club, as Brooksie proves time and time again to be, you are willing to give up any factual basis to prop up the emperor with no clothes. The reward is speaking engagements, book deals and attaboys/cash from the elite information manipulators. I'm sure Brooksie noted the comfort of his leather seats while driving back from his appearance.
Here you have a "News" analyst discussing, based on his informed knowledge, the outcome of a possible action by the government. The assumption is that Brooks will convey information he gleaned from discussions with the real experts. His job as a reporter is to COMMUNICATE TO THE PUBLIC THE FACTS.
Apparently it did not really bother Brooks to just make up stuff and present it as facts, despite the fact that HIS JOB IS TO COMMUNICATE FACTS!!
Brother....
I wonder if Brooks feels ok if his own personal Doctor plays as fast and loose with facts as Brooks does...
"Well, it might be Cancer or it might be a cold. Take some chicken soup and come back in three or four months and we will see."
What a dick...
That's an effective rebuttal to the inevitable argument that Brooks was simply voicing an opinion. And when I say inevitable, I mean that I'm sure that someone will still put forth that argument even though you just pre-emptively shot it down.
It's amazing how disconnected from the real world, some of these 'pundits' seem to be... it's frightening to think anyone would be so foolish, as to follow these 'pundits' advice (or whatever it is that comes out of their mouths, when they open them)...
It's just too dangerous, were you imagine these 'pundits' to actually have any real power over National Policy.
So this political hack david brooks says:
brooks: So are we willing to prevent 10,000 Iraqi deaths a month at the cost of 125 Americans?
It sounds like an important question. But please change "we" to something that means brooks, and his kind...
brooks: So am I, and my kind, willing to prevent 10,000 Iraqi deaths a month at the cost of 125 Americans?
There, that's better. Now the question is answerable... but only by brooks, and his kind; an answer which seems to be:
Yes, david brooks and his kind, are willing to sacrifice 125 Americans a month, to prevent 10,000 Iraqi deaths.
Change "Americans" also, to be brooks and his kind:
brooks: So am I, and my kind, willing to prevent 10,000 Iraqi deaths a month at the cost of 125 of me and my kind?
That's better too.
What was david brooks souce for this ratio, of 125:10,000?
"I just picked out 10,000 out of the air" --brooks
Again, sounds frightening and dangerous, some of the things these disconnected 'pundits' (david brooks) can say about National Policy.
I have a few changes I'd make, to david brooks 'castle in the air': What about 125 Americans that brooks knows personally himself... I "pick that out of the air" (that being brooks' source, the "air", it is mine also)... the question is:
Is david brooks willing to prevent 10,000 Iraqi deaths a month at the cost of 125 Americans he knows personally?
It's a real question... he should consider it that way... it's serious. How about this:
Is david brooks willing to sacrifice 125 of his friends co-workers neighbors and family, per month, to prevent 10,000 Iraqi deaths?
His own family, his blood kin... his Sons and Daughters (were he to have any), his Brothers and Sisters, his Father and Mother... is he willing to sacrifice them, at a ratio of 125:10,000, to prevent Iraqi deaths?
Again, it's a serious and frightening and dangerous disconnect here... because as we all know, those Americans whom david brooks is willing to sacrifice in Iraq, are indeed someone's friend and co-worker and neighbor... they are indeed someone's Son or Daughter or Brother or Sister or Dad or Mom.
Thanks Dem. I was just going to post a similar comment. I couldn't have done better than yours.
And thanks to you too WorrierKing.
I want to note something here, about Iraq in general, and hacks like david brooks in particular, cheering on senselessly, all of this death in Iraq, and the deaths of our Sons and Daughters there.
I've never seen this invasion and occupation of Iraq, to ever have served any National Security purpose to the American People at all... not once did I believe that in the least, from the very moment it was apparent, that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld et al, were "selling" this invasion and occupation of Iraq, to the American People and their Congress.
And so that has always been, and remains now, what I consider to be the single greatest argument against this occupation: It serves no National Security purpose to the American People, and it never has... it's based on lies, and it's professed "mission" shifts continually, with the political winds...
The "continuing threat posed by Iraq" was a lie, so the "mission" was shifted to "Democracy building"...
And just a year ago last month, the U.S. House, led by Republicans (and in opposition to a proposed measure by Mr. Murtha) affirmed just that "mission" objective: Resolved, That the House of Representatives (4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq... is how H.Res.861 read...
And now the "mission" has shifted again, to fighting 'al qaida' in Iraq... which was one of the original lies told to impel the invasion: The lie that 'al qaida' is in Iraq! (And I find it strangely suspicious, that the Bush administration now continually invokes a supposed group in Iraq, that has strangely chosen that as it's name: "al qaida in Iraq").
Anyway, I post to say that I've always thought the "mission", and all it's sacrifice of life limb and treasure, to be a fraud and a waste, because it involves not, the National Security of the American People.
But do you know just much this "mission" truly involves oil?
I bet you do, but me, I'm only just finding out.
Do you know how many multi-national oil companies are, by way of forcing through Iraqi law, controlling and selling Iraq's oil?
http://uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=13688
And that the Iraqi people are not dumb to this, and know where the money from the sale of their oil is going... not to them, that's where!
And it's their oil!
And so here's what I say, and why I post: As long as we labor under these lies and ever-shifting "missions", supposedly justifying an occupation of Iraq, and all the sacrifice of life limb and treasure that results...
As long as the Bush administration continues to mischaracterize the 'insurgency' in Iraq to the American People (Iran, and now "al qaida in Iraq", they say to us)...
As long as someone continues to steal Iraq's oil from Iraq's people, the violence will never end...
When will the Iraqi people stop fighting against what they more than believe, they KNOW, is the theft of their oil?
The answer must be never.
And so you see, that's just another reason hacks like david brooks advocate the deaths of our Sons and Daughters (but nobody he knows or loves or is blood kin to, I'm sure) in Iraq.
Because it's good for business, the oil business.
So to the questions I had asked in my post above, I'd add:
Is david brooks willing to sacrifice 125 Americans (whom he neither knows personally nor cares for at all) per month, for the revenues and the profits of multi-national oil companies ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP?
The answer it seems, is a sad "yes".
It really boggles the mind how little value these people put on the lives of our military. As Hemmingway once said "every man's death diminishes me". Life is so precious and every effort needs to be made to prevent further loss of life just so a bunch of chickenhawk politicians can save face.
I can answer his question. I, personally, am NOT WILLING to sacrifice ONE MORE AMERICAN SOLDIER for this fool's errand. Is that their latest brand new reason for being in Iraq, so that Iraqi civilians won't be killed after we leave?
Is that their latest brand new reason for being in Iraq, so that Iraqi civilians won't be killed after we leave?
That would assume they cared anything about the Iraqis at any time during this debacle.
Suddenly they start caring about the Iraqi's. And it only took 4+ years.
Wait until the Oil deal is in place, then they won't care so much.
Around 80% of the American people supported this misdventure when it began. I was astounded at the jingoism that swept this country in 2002/03. Now that the war is not going well, everybody who supported this nonsense then is claiming selective amnesia now (and that included the entire slate of Dem candidates except Barak Hussein Obama and Dennis Kucinich).. If you are not willing to support a war that you probably cheered on 4 years ago, maybe you shouldn't have cheered it on in the first place.
GENG:
Your recitation of the chronology leaves out a couple of important factors.
Like, we Americans have been learning in ever increasing factual discoveries that the Bush Administration fabricated the entire rationale for this war, and their claims were a pack of lies.
As the war has unfolded, we Americans have learned that the Bush Administration is utterly incompetent to conduct a war, and their every failure and mistake results in MORE American soldiers being injured and killed FOR NO GOOD REASON.
We have learned that the innocent Iraqis we are supposed to be "liberating" are being killed wholesale, by our own "collateral damage" and also because we have destabilized the area so that thugs of every stripe can rain destruction on that nation's population. Tens (and perhaps hundreds) of thousands of Iraqis are being "liberated to death" ... and it's getting worse.
As time goes on, the "reasons" for the War keep changing, which means the LAST excuses we were fed for why this war was "worth it" become inoperative. We learn through experience that whatever TODAY'S rationale from the Bush White House is, it is most probably phony, wrong and bogus, and will be replaced with a new one tomorrow.
So harkening back to the days of yore, when America was "innocent" to the craven incompetence and avarice of the Bush Administration, may be an interesting look back in history, but it ignores the harsh REALITIES that we now know.
There ARE creatures on earth which simply cannot learn from experience, but if it's, say, a DOG that cannot be trained, that dog has to be put down, because it cannot function as a part of our society and community. A creature which cannot learn from experience is worthless.
Are YOU such a creature? Do you think WE are?
That's exactly why it's relevant that the buildup to war relied on cherry-picked intelligence. Everything they claimed they had was disputed by experts, but they used it anyway. The aluminum tubes, for instance.
Every time this is brought up, someone here dismisses it as being "in the past" or not an excuse for Dem's "flip-flopping" on the AUMF. Your post demonstrates exactly why that factor is so important, because if the case for war was dishonest, that's an obvious and understandable explanation for why so many people have changed their minds on it.
The way the war is going is a factor in support as well, but it is clearly not the only factor as you attempt to portray it.
Good points. I believe one of the panelists made a passing comment about "how we got there" and quickly dismissed its relevance.
The Bush apologists have done a good job of keeping this topic off the table. In essence, they are saying that there is no point in investigating the lies told leading to the Iraq war. Unfortunately, the press and the Democratic Congress seem to have bought into this paradigm. I just don't get it.
Hi genghis,
If you had surgery and afterwards found out that you really did not need surgery, but, still would need more surgery to repair mistakes made during your unessecary surgery, would you choose the same surgeon to do the surgery to fix his own mistakes?
Neither would I.
Genghiz, Sorry I e-mailed EVERY Democratic Senator and begged them NOT to vote "yes" on Juniors war. I can bit*h all day long cause I've been bit*hing since the war started.
For those who initially supported the war and now don't, better late than never. The war was ONLY successful as far as removing Saddam. NOTHING has gone right since. The problem is YOU keep telling the same lie over and over again, "we are winning" and we were not.
Reality check time.
This is what passers for intellectual discussion with the extremists -- Brooks pulling numbers out of the air. And when called on it, he showed no shame, no embarrassment for having been caught inventing his facts, and lying in the attribution. One cannot hope to have honest dialog with the right.
No, I am not willing to trade American lives for Iraqi lives. There, I've said it. That question bothered me as much as him pulling the 10,000 figure out of his a**. No, I am not, I am not willing to trade American lives for Iraqi lives.
this scoundrel leads credence to the necessity of having Media Matters for America.
David Brooks never ceases to piss me off. He always has this snide little smile or sneer on his lips as he condescendingly explains why you are wrong and he is right about everything. Today's episode on MTP was not the first time he was caught pulling facts out of his derrier, but he never gets challenged when he dose so. I was so happy when Bob Woodward really pinned him to the wall on this one, and made Brooks admit that he really does not know what the hell he is talking about, and that, yes indeed, he did actually pull the number 10,000 out of the air. Had Woodward not called him on this, people watching this exchange might very well have accepted that number as fact and been influenced one way or the other unfairly.
Instead of displaying his stunning ignorance on subjects such as Iraq, maybe Brooks should go back to focusing his laser intellect on the perils of the sinister influence of gangsta rap on society. I seem to remember him devoting an entire column to this subject several months back, while U.S. soldiers were getting killed in Iraq. Is Brooks willing to try and prevent the deaths of a 125 American soldiers at the cost of a single NY Times column deploring the initiation and execution of this misbegotten war? It certainly doesn't appear so.
As Al Frenken would put it, Brooks gets his data from the Bureau of his Rear End.
I think Brooks' larger point was that the Iraqi deaths will increase after we leave. I agree that he should not have just thrown out the 10,000 number as being "expert" opinion.
As one of the panelists pointed out, nobody knows what will happen if and when we pull out.
Take a wild guess.
Since the experts agree that our presence increases the level of violence, I would say that the number of Iragi deaths will go down after we leave.
The important thing to remember is that by staying in Iraq, Dick Cheney and his pals will make a lot more money off of it than if we leave. I bet Brooks thinks this is worth at least 125 American lives per month.
Guessing is ALL that has happen by the leaders of this war.
Take a wild guess has been the rightwing MO from the beggining when discussing this war. So far, despite the odds, they havent been right a SINGLE TIME, I think its time we tried something OTHER than basing our foriegn policy on wild guesses
Leather says, "TAKE A WILD GUESS".
Why not? That's how the Bush Administration handles its business. What's that? This technique leads to FAILURE after FAILURE?
Then maybe taking wild guesses ... and committing thousands of American lives to those guesses ... is a BAD IDEA.
The REAL question is not whether there will be massive killings when we leave, but if we will expend several thousand American service persons' lives to have those killings take place in five years, instead of today.
The rightwing want as many American soldiers killed as possible before we finally leave. That is a BAD IDEA.
Also, a rightwinger might TELL you that massive killings will happen if we leave, but they don't KNOW this ... they are GUESSING. So they are willing to spill American soldiers' blood on their GUESSES.
These are people who are amoral to the point of being EVIL. How did they gain the reins of power? How can we get them back NOW?
Yes, we can't be certain about the aftermath of a withdrawal. However, there's a reasonable basis for concluding that an increase in violence is likely. Therefore, it's better to concede the point and remain credible. Yet, that still isn't a valid reason for remaining in Iraq.
Both Palestine and Indochina became more violent after the withdrawal of a foreign occupier. Palestine was a classic exercise in futility. The British were unable to resolve the issue with more than 30 years of occupation, instead only finding themselves attacked by both sides.
Indochina was eventually able to resolve its own issues, but only after regional civil war was able to run its course. Despite the predictions, the region did not become a base for Communism to spread into the rest of Southeast Asia. One country, Cambodia, has actually become a democracy.
We broke Iraq. It may likely become more violent when we leave. However, it's also likely it won't be fixed until we leave.
Christian,
I hate to nitpick, but on what basis would you conclude that there will be an increase in violence?
Much of the violence is a direct result of our presence.
Do you have some information regarding past withdrawels and violence levels?
Without evidence, I can't conclude and neither can anyone else, what direction the violence will take after we leave.
By Information I mean something substantive. The levels of violence in Indochina and Palestine don't relate in this case. Palestine is unique due to Arab/Isreali animosity.
Occupation in and of itself creates the atmosphere for violence and civil war. We, by our presence are not preventing violence, by all accounts we are inciting violence, so again I ask, by what logic or past circumstances do you conclude that the level of violence will increase?
Occupation in and of itself creates the atmosphere for violence and civil war.
"Yes" on the first part, "no" on the second. The atmosphere for civil war was created by the removal of the Baathist government.
See the rest of my comments below.
Do you have some information regarding past withdrawels and violence levels?
Did you bother to read my post? Or do you mean that the only acceptable evidence would be with respect to a withdrawals from Iraq itself?
Obviously, we can't ascertain the long-term results in Iraq yet. Therefore, I provided a couple of historical examples. Each of those examples was marked by a significant immediate increase in violence, but with different long-term results.
Here is one example from Iraq itself - the British withdrawal from Basra - suggesting that the near-term in the rest of Iraq may also be marked by increased violence. (Remember the criticism of claims by the U.S. and British that the British were withdrawing because they had succeeded?) Violence is occuring because of our presence, but not only because of our presence.
Christian,
I did read your post and I still disagree with your examples as they do not correlate. Your Basra example is not very good either as the British are still there and are still a target.
Also, the war and subsequent occupation most certainly created the atmosphere for violence and civil war as they always do. In any war and occupation, the power structure is destroyed leaving a vacuum. When that vacuum is not immediately filled or when the potential power groups are not strong enough to take control immediately you have a civil war and violence.
We created this situation. Staying there makes it worse. Getting out will allow the Iraqi's to resolve their own issues.
Whether violence increases or decrease nobody can predict. There will be less violence towards our troops if we leave though.
Once someone gains power there will be less violence and ultimately that is what all the violence is about, control of Iraq and it's resources!
What occurs after we leave will occur inevitably regardless of when we leave. I say the violence will decrease, you say it will increase, neither of us knows and nothing can change what will happen after we leave.
You just about made the argument for me. If this was simply a matter of Iraqis vs U.S. occupation, I'd agree that a withdrawal would result in an immediate decrease in violence. However, it isn't.
It seems unrealistically idealistic to assume that the Iraqis will resolve their differences the very moment we exit. If you look at other situations where an occupying force was intervening in a civil war, the immediate aftermath of withdrawal was an increase in violence. How long this period will last in Iraq (days? weeks? longer?) and with what outcome is more uncertain.
In any event, if I wasn't clear enough before, I do agree that the U.S. should not remain in Iraq. I just don't agree that opponents to the occupation should be attempting to argue a point - which if proven wrong - will only damage attempts to influence future foreign policy.
Will Iraqi deaths increase when we leave? I know it's accepted as conventional wisdom, but does anyone actually KNOW?
The answer is - of course not. It's a guess. From an administration whose track record on guessing the future of Iraq has not been exactly stellar.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Why do we have zero troops in Darfur? Genocide is being committed there.
Because the left would claim we were there to kill brown people.
Nice try, Helmnut...maybe the real reason is that most of our available troops and equipment are BOGGED DOWN IN IRAQ. But, we have plenty of nukes left. Maybe we could nuke Darfur...
Because George W Bush is the cammander in chief and completely responsible for the conduct of foreign policy, not the left, not the generals who bow to him, not the troops who dodge bullets for him, on the ground, not you, not me. Bush doesn't have the balls to face the nation in town hall meeting to explain this fiasco.
Because the left would claim we were there to kill brown people. Leather
What I'm having a hard time understanding is you want to stand by while genocide takes place in Darfur but you claim the same genocide will take place if we leave Iraq.
Leather, can you explain why it's OK to allow genocide in Darfur but we can't allow the "supposed" genocide to take place in Iraq if we leave.
Could it be that their are "brown" people in Darfur? Could it be that Iraq has "oil" which we value more than lives?
Please point out all the voices on the right that are clammering to go to Darfur.
Do you ever make posts OTHER than blatant lies about us lefties? YOU are a liar.
Any guesses who said the following?
"In the current war, many conservatives are concerned to win, even with defective leadership, because "we are stuck with [the president] for another year and a half." But why dig the hole deeper? Why not press for a solution that cuts our national losses?"
What is Sean Insanity?
Good guess. It was our good friend, David Horowitz, writing about the war in Kosovo. I wouldn't doubt that Hanniturd said something similar at the time. In fact, I wish someone with the time and know-how would put together a collection of quotes by the GOP propaganda parrots when they were openly and viciously attacking our commander in chief in the late 90s. It would make for interesting reading at this time.
More interesting quotes from the same article:
"Again, we are intruding into a civil war, again we are applying "coercive diplomacy" ineffectively, trying to bring a nationalist adversary to the negotiating table."
"America's global mission is now increasingly compromised by shortages in ordnance, equipment, and personnel."
"Suppose the American public, footing most of the bill, was prepared for the long invasion and campaign, and for the casualties necessary to defeat Serbia's forces, something 33 Axis divisions failed to accomplish during a five-year campaign in World War II. Suppose we won. What then?"
[link to www.frontpagemag.com]
Why does Horowitz hate America?
It is amazing how people like Genghiz come in to post stupid Hannity-type questions and then disappear when they get nailed. I mean, this guys can't even do a follow up question/answer because apparently their minds don't allow any level of thought.
A debate gets reduced to a one Yes/No question full of logical fallacies.
This "technique" seems to work wonders since the clowns using them have quite a big audience and are regarded as intellectuals.
They were killing each other in Southeast Asia before we got there, while we were there and after we left. The Second Indochina War, which primarily involved Vietnam, occurred from 1960 to 1975. American involvement was 1965 thru 1973. There were 2,750,000 civilian and military deaths for the entire war. The American phase contributed 1,700,000 deaths, including 57,000 dead American soldiers. I do not want to upset the man-children out there, so will not mention the number maimed. For Brooks who likes monthly figures, that’s about 18,000 deaths a month, while we were involved in Vietnam and 12,000 a month when we were not. Vietnam is not Iraq. However since history is still a better model for making predications than pulling facts out of Brooks arse, it is likely they will continue killing each other in Iraq after we leave and that they will continue killing and dying at a greater clip while we are there. It's an unfortunate commentary on our invasion that in Iraq they had not been killing each other since the first Gulf war.
In the end, what makes Brooks such a miserable excuse for a human being is he has no concern that the US has ZERO desire to track civilian deaths during our invasion and occupation, but is only concerned about civilian deaths after we leave. Next time he goes looking for facts up his arse, may he remain there for a longer period of time.
That's a very good observation. Who among the conservatives has been clamouring for statistics on Iraqi civilian deaths since our invasion? You can bet that if we pull out, they'll be trumpeting the death toll daily.
Will you lefties stipulate that civilian deaths are unfortunate but inevitable in a war zone?
In WWII, civilian casualties were in the tens of millions and opposing forces did not go out of their way to minimize civilian casualties. There was too much at stake. In today’s Middle East war zone, the U.S. and its coalition allies have been going all out to avoid civilian casualties - to the point of increasing our own.
You can’t say the same for the other side as the Iraq action and the recent Hezbollah action in Lebanon have shown. The enemy fighters have no compulsion to protect civilians from harm. Rather they often deliberately put civilians in harm’s way by forcing them to remain in structures from which the enemy initiates ambushes. In many cases, they even have cameramen from Arab TV on notice to come in and video the aftermath for propaganda purposes.
Although I haven’t paid attention 24/7 to the posts on these Iraq war threads, I’ve yet to see an answer from you folks on the left as to what should be the next move after we make our quick pull out from Iraq: negotiation? Hunker down at home? … kiss and make up with the Islamists?
How about resuming our hunt for Osama Bin Laden? Maybe we can use the returning troops to beef up border security? Maybe we can use some of that 12 billion dollars per month on more intelligent and selective ways to combat worldwide terrorism? Don't tell me that you believe that hokum about "staying on offense against terrorism" by staying in Iraq. Please tell me that you're smarter than that.
Unless you hadn't noticed, the Iraq war ain't WWII, and WE started this one. Since WE started this one by invading Iraq, maybe it is our responsibility to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible? Otherwise, we lose yet another Bush excuse for starting the war. Surely you'll agree that it's hard to claim that you're "liberating" a population while you're killing them indiscriminately?
No. I’m not smarter than that: If you’re not staying on offense, then you’re on defense.
Okay. If I understand the first paragraph, we pull out of Iraq and do other things: hunt for Bin Laden, beef up border security, “more intelligent and selective ways to combat worldwide terrorism”. All good stuff. I am with you 100% on all three of those. We’d probably have an argument about what approaches to worldwide terrorism are “more intelligent”.
As for Bin Laden, I think you’ll shortly see U.S. (and possibly other EU) forces going after the Taliban in Waziristan. My guess is that in the back channels, Musharraf has been put on notice that we are going into that part of Pakistan. This should be very similar to the situation we faced in Afghanistan in that the Taliban are the hoods that control the hood and the locals will, once they see who the stronger horse really is, begin cooperating with our side. Oh, I know it’ll be tough but, given free reign, that’s the stuff our military does best.
This ain’t WWII. If we had fought WWII the way we’re fighting this one, we’d be bowing down to the Emperor on the west coast and heiling der Fuhrer on the east. We invaded Iraq but we didn’t start this war. Do you recall all of the Islamist attacks on U.S. and allied interests prior to 9/11? Do you recall who invaded Kuwait? Do you recall who threw out the UN inspectors and had a virule WMD development effort going?
So, you really do think, NERZOG, that we are “killing civilians indiscriminately”?
Old Marine, you were the one who compared the Iraq invasion and occupation to WWII. This makes no sense. There is no Iraqi insurgent army with uniforms. This situation is much more akin to the American revolution, and is a good illustration of how a rag tag affiliation of guerrilla fighters (in their own land) can wear out a much more powerful army of invaders.
The logic of being in Iraq has shifted so many times, and so many of us predicted that this very situation would develop. And sadly yes, there are many reports of soldiers killing indiscriminately. The blame for this is on the civilian administrators of this fiasco, who have given the soldiers no plan for success and have left them as sitting ducks in patrols and convoys and endless rotations.
MARY,
What I recall I’ve said on that comparison is between the combat situation in the two campaigns, calling Iraq a caldron into which the Islamists have poured their reinforcements just as the Japanese in WWII poured their reinforcements into Guadal Canal after we invaded that island. Is that what you are referring to?
What’s going on in Iraq is not limited to home-grown insurgents. In fact the insurgent Sunnis are coming more and more to the side of the Iraqi government as we speak. They are simply sick and tired of the devastation being wreaked on innocent civilians by imported suicide bombers and the Al Qaeda among them. I agree on your comparison with the American revolutionary war to some extent: the French helping us out against the British occupiers just as Iran and Al Qaeda have helped the original insurgent Sunnis. It’s a shallow comparison beyond that.
I’ve said before that I think we invaded Iraq for two reasons: (1) to show the Islamists, mainly Al Queda, that Mogadishu was an aberration and not the way we fight our enemies, and (2) we really did believe that Hussein had a viable nuclear development capability (in addition to his proven stores of chemical and biological weapons) and, thus, he was a threat to the entire Middle East and especially to the oil supply. Again, that’s just my theory.
There are not “many” reports of indiscriminate killing by U.S. military. There a very few of these incidents. Those one or two which have not yet been resolved do get a lot of publicity, which the Islamists and their friends in the Arab media and, unfortunately, in the U.S. media as well, are all too happy to exploit. Those who have been accused, some of them wrongfully as we now see, are being prosecuted to an extent no other country in the world would prosecute their own.
How can you say that our military has been given no plan for success? What do you call success in Iraq? If the duty in Iraq is not a noble calling for those Americans who have volunteered for the military, why do the Army and Marine Corp, for example, where the most casualties have been taken, continue to meet and exceed their reenlistment goals?
I’m painfully aware of the difference between my attitude and those I (perhaps rudely) call “lefties”. I’ve been in on email debates with relatives and friends on a number of occasions on the two sides of the political divide and know how tough these can be on personal relationships. Fortunately, I’ve never lost a friend or relative that way but often it was because we both recognized that our differences were pretty much irreconcilable and the friendship was more valuable than making the arguments.
What I have learned, however, is the fundamental differences in attitudes on the two sides regarding how to deal with those who seek dominance toward you. That’s really what’s at work here. I doubt if anyone on either side of this forum is mentally or morally flawed. It’s that difference in attitude about what to do about domination. This difference in attitude can be exploited by those actually seeking domination over you in one form or another.
Old Marine,
You really don't have a firm grasp on reality or an ability to understand what is going on in Iraq.
We knew they didn't have nuclear capability, that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. We also knew that Al Queda had nothing to do with Iraq and vice versa, so your "theory" as to why we invaded is uninformed at best.
As for this being a noble cause, I can undestand the men and women over there fighting wanting to consider it a noble cause and not the senseless waste of life it is rapidly becoming, but if you analyze the situation it is easy to see that there is no strategy involved and the definition of success is contiously changing.
We will never achieve a democratic society in Iraq. We will never be able to force our will upon the Iraqis and we will never have an ally in the Middle East until we learn to understand this culture and find a mutual benefit in working together.
Your mindless comparison to WWII is ridiculous. This war couldn't be fought the way WWII for hundreds of reasons the least of which is defining our enemy. Which side of the civil war are you advocating that we support? Up until recently we supported the Shia. Now we are arming the Sunni's.
Al Queda was not in Iraq until we invaded, so you can't say we are there to defeat them.
Let's here your educated response to these issues.
REDKING,
Wrong: We have evidence obtained after the U.S. invasion that Saddam was working on a nuclear bomb and we know that Iraqi biological artillery warheads were intended to be used in a WMD attack on Jordan, these coming by the truckload from Syria (presumably after they were trucked over there by Saddam to save them from U.S. capture).
Al Qaeda had a training camp in Iraq before the invasion and there’s no doubt that they are there now as the former Sunni “insurgents” are coming over to the side of the Iraqi government to fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Okay. So, what is your strategy? Nerzog had some ideas about what to do with the troops and the money we’d save after we left Iraq. Unfortunately, he didn’t elaborate on what, if anything, he’d do about Iraq.
Of course, “we” won’t achieve a Democratic society in Iraq. The Iraqis will. We’re not enforcing our will so much as our philosophy of the human being’s association with government, i.e. the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Culture? Sure. But that freedom thing is universal.
I’ve given the WWII comparison on this forum at least three times, i.e. Guadal Canal compared with Iraq.
Oldie,
Where's your evidence? Everything I have read points to the opposite. They never had a viable nuclear program.
As for other WMD, they were all supplied by the US in the 80's and there weren't any new programs going on, the evidence of the last programs were from pre-1991.
Al Queda had no presence in Iraq prior to our invasion as even the President has admitted.
I'm not an experienced diplomat or military strategist so it is impossible for me to come up with a "strategy" but common sense dictates that what we are doing is failing!
As for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that is strictly an American thing. It can't be exported, people have to want it and be willing to fight for it themselves.
You are full of misinformation and silly phrases.
We recovered nuclear material and uranium separation assets. They actually did make a query about yellow cake uranium in Africa (as still claimed by both French and British intel agencies). I know these are facts that the left still lies about but they’re true.
What I said above about Al Qaeda in Iraq is true, not what you said here.
If you are getting your news from NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, the NYT, the LAT (which I read myself), or any left wing blog, then it’s no doubt that you think it’s a “failed strategy”. You might try some of the other news sources and get the facts on the ground instead of what left-wing pundits and Democrat party spokesmen are saying.
NOW, THIS IS WHERE YOU REALLY SHOW me that you’re a dyed-in-the-wool liberal (modern liberal, not classic): “As for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that is strictly an American thing” REALLY!!! I’m astounded that you can say that with a straight face.
Also, it can be exported. I’ll give you a couple of beautiful examples: post WWII Nazi Germany, and Imperialist Japan!
Oldie,
Now I know I'm dealing with a nutjob.
What are your sources of info?
Also, tell me about Germany and Japan, you obviously have never been there.
They do not have a culture that places a high value on life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, that is strictly American.
If you believe that, then you are not American.
You are just Batsh*t crazy.
You have repeated lies over and over again. Provide a source for your foolish information or stop citing it, it's not true just because you say it.
I have presented well accepted facts. You have presented half baked theories and disproven statements.
You live in a fantasy world and you still use stupid terms like liberal and conservative, left and right and you think that makes your argument.
Can you ever have a discussion without resorting to stupid labels like that?
Are you so dumb that you can't have an original thought?
Everything you have stated came from the mouth of Hannity or Limbaugh or some idiot like that.
Everything I have stated comes from my own thought process and a review of the facts.
You don't seem to like facts so you make stuff up.
It's very difficult to have a rational discussion if you have to make things up to present your point.
YOU are flat out wrong. Those are talking points only the most brainwashed are still trying to sell. Sure they had nuclear material like yellowcake which was monitered by the IAEA until they left and was untouched from the time they left until we invaded we found it just like the IAEA left it there was NO seperation material NO chemical OR biological weapons remember the Kay and Duelfer reports they BOTH said no WMDs since the mid 90's. NO we DONT know that Iraq sought any uranium from Africa that is ludicrous all evidence points to the opposite we HAVE an Iraqi memo where the Congo OFFERED them uranium oxide and they turned them down saying they were watched too closely also as already noted they HAD uranuim oxide 500 TONS of it. If these are really reasons you support this war they are uninformed reasons and you should do enough research to find out how utterly WRONG they are then reassess your positions since they are based on NONSENSE.
We have evidence obtained after the U.S. invasion that Saddam was working on a nuclear bomb and we know that Iraqi biological artillery warheads were intended to be used in a WMD attack on Jordan, these coming by the truckload from Syria (presumably after they were trucked over there by Saddam to save them from U.S. capture).
If the above statement was true Fox News would be screaming it from the roof tops. Sean, Rush and Boortz would be driving drown the street blasting it from the radio like teenagers. No true, period.
Al Qaeda had a training camp in Iraq before the invasion and there’s no doubt that they are there now as the former Sunni “insurgents” are coming over to the side of the Iraqi government to fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Al Qaeda had a small camp in the northern sections of Iraq NOT under Saddam’s control. Junior was aware of this after 9/11. He could have simply bombed them. Instead he waited 18 months and invaded the entire country.
The “Sunni insurgents” are NOT coming over to the side of the Iraq government. The Shiites who run the government are none to happy to have Sunnis running around with guns and cash provided by America.
Oops, Sorry, SKEPTICAL. That was meant to be addressed to you. (Old age ;-) )
OM,
I know I was not a part of the original discussion, but do you really believe what you wrote here:
"I’ve said before that I think we invaded Iraq for two reasons: (1) to show the Islamists, mainly Al Queda, that Mogadishu was an aberration and not the way we fight our enemies, and (2) we really did believe that Hussein had a viable nuclear development capability (in addition to his proven stores of chemical and biological weapons) and, thus, he was a threat to the entire Middle East and especially to the oil supply. Again, that’s just my theory."
If I read you correctly, you think the #1 reason for invading Iraq was "(1) to show the Islamists, mainly Al Queda, that Mogadishu was an aberration and not the way we fight our enemies?" Are you kidding? We started a war to show Al Qaeda how tough we are? Isn't that like when person A punches you going over to person B while A watches and beating the crap out of person B? I really hope I read you wrong here.
We DID start this war. We invaded Iraq WITHOUT provocation or threat from that country. We committed a blatant act of agression with the sole purpose of taking, controlling, and dominating an entire nation. In historical terms, this is called CONQUEST.
I notice you keep whining this is about "Islamists". Could this be your racism showing? You Crusaders do not hide your will to kill people for their religion very well....and you love to project that lust for mass murder on your opponents. So do the world a favor and kill yourself. One less racist would make this a better planet.
REDKING,
Agreed. We invaded Iraq. We did not, however, start this war (see my preceding posts).
I don’t recall “whining” about Islamists. I do use the term and have noted in the past that it is a very well defined term: those who believe in the ascension of the Muslim faith as the only legitimate governing force in the world and, moreover, are willing to die to promote the ascension of that faith to actually governing the world. Easy with the term “racist”. It doesn’t apply.
“Crusader”? Call it what you want. I believe that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is worth fighting for. I don’t see much liberty, let alone happiness, under the control of an Islamist government.
Great ending sentence, REDKING. I thought you had better stuff than that. (I guess if your argument is stale, resort to personal attacks).
Ciao!
Old Old Marine,
You use the stupid phrase that we didn't start this war. You obviously know very little about our history.
Putting that aside, what did Iraq have to do with any terrorist attack against the US?
Please, I await your reply!
Old Marine,
You must be old because you have very selective memory. Except for who invaded Kuwait, Iraq had nothing to do with any of your other comments. And as for Kuwait, we gave Saddam the okay, he was our ally at the time, get a clue!
SKEPTICAL,
Old but not dead yet (although REDKING suggested I get to that state).
As for our reasons for invading Iraq, I stand by the two reasons given above (and on a number of previous occasions).
So, you think we ought to get out ASAP?
Oldie,
How can you stand on those reasons when they have been proven false?
OldMarine,
No, I don't think we should get out ASAP. Since people like you have screwed this thing up completely though, I don't think your advice is very good.
I also know that you can't just pick up and leave, that isn't logistically feasible.
The problem is that every minute we are there people are dying for no good reason and we are wasting resources.
We need to redeploy to the places that we can be effective and we have to develop an overall strategy to deal with the actual terrorist organizations and the actual threats, not these made up ones.
SKEPTICAL
(Again, my apologies for calling you “REDKING”)
Of course, people screw up wars, just like people screw up a lot of enterprises. This war with the Islamists won’t be won in the Middle East although it is absolutely essential that we don’t cut and run over there. There’s too much at stake.
This war will be won or lost in the U.S.A. If the opinion of the left prevails we will be in the predictimant that much of the EU is now in, wherein the militant Muslims need to be appeased in order to buy peace. If you doubt that, check out what’s being said by Immams in most, if not all of the mosqes, not only in the EU, but right here in this country regarding the jihad. Moderate Muslims will not be willing to stand against the radicals as long as the infidels appease the radicals.
If this sounds like a stretch to you, fine. Stay tuned and check back with me in a year or two. The longer we take to acknowledge that we must win this war, both on the ground in the Middle East and in the propaganda streets of the western world, the more we are in danger of either Islamist domination or a nuclear Armaggedon.
Okay. Now you’ve got a better “strategy” than fighting in Iraq with the aim of an independent Iraqi government. Love to hear it.
Okay Oldie,
First, to win you have to understand that winning the battle against the terrorists organizations has nothing to do with Iraq. Until you understand that, there is no chance of winning anything.
Also, put aside your stupid left/right dichotomy. I'm an American and I look out for what's best for America.
Now, we are not fighting Islamists. We are fighting terrorists that use the Islamic Religion as a recruiting tool. That is a signifcant distinction, because we will need the help of Islamic people to win this war. Our allies will be Islamists also.
Cut and Run is such a stupid phrase. Don't use it, a phrase like that displays your inability to think.
I agree, the war will be won or lost here in the US, by getting the American people and politicians to understand that military power wil not win this war, only a comprehensive strategy utilizing military might, diplomacy, arm twisting, and negotiation will bring us to a successful situation.
Finally, Iraq will never have an independant government. The best we can hope for is a divided Iraq, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish regions. Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorist organizations.
The terrorists functioned and thrived without any help from Iraq. Actually, Iraq was a pretty secular country and didn't foster the extremist groups like Saudi Arabia did.
If there is one country that we should have invaded, it's Saudi Arabia. They are the leaders of the extremist fundamentalist views.
So, in the future, come equippped with some actual facts and real knowledge of current events and deal less with foolish soundbites and rightwing talking points.
SKEPTICAL,
Wrong again. Losing in Iraq would be a huge setback in the war against the Islamists.
Well, there is a political divide. I call it left and right. How would you like to term it?
Your third paragraph is right on. In fact, that is the absolutely essential element of the war: to win the hearts and minds of the moderate Muslims over the jihad crowd.
Okay. No “cut and run”. To withdraw before Al Sadr and his Mahdti Army and Al Qaeda in Iraq are whittle down such that the Iraqis themselves can whip them, would be a setback. Setbacks are costly. It still say it’s to the advantage of the Democrat party for us to be discerned by the American voter as having been defeated in Iraq … IF the Democrats can engineer that outcome such that the blame can be laid at the feet of the Republicans. I think it’s very clear that this is how congressional Democrats and their supporters in the media have been behaving.
I agree with your “comprehensive” strategy paragraph. I would add that we couldn’t pull that off against the “idea” of jihad unless we confront the immorality of the jihad with some morality of our own. Unfortunately, I don’t think many of the Muslim youth “on the fence” in the EU for example necessarily see the western way of life as appealing as jihad might be. Demographics are on the side of the Islamists in the EU. The U.S.? I dunno but I wonder how far from becoming the EU we are getting to be, i.e. a government-dependent society.
I have no quarrel with your characterization of Iraq as previously a secular country, albeit one under the thumb of a tyrannical dictator. Speaking of secular governments, notice that Turkey has, as of today, gone radical Islam via the vote.
I agree about the talking points.
Ciao for now as I’m headed to a ball game on TV.
Good talking to you. Catch you at another opportunity.
There is no winning or losing in Iraq every positive thing we could do there has been done. Iraq has NOTHING to do with any fight against Islamic terrorists. They are only there because WE are, they werent there UNTIL we got there, your silly talk about an al Queda terrorist camp was of course in Northern Iraq and outside of Iraqs control which you MUST have known. Saddam is gone they have a government its time to leave, let them sort our their own problems, make an agreement that will allow us to take out any terrorist training camps that pop up there and focus on the REAL problem terrorism.
Define victory, please.
No war is going to be won with YOUR policy of getting as many Americans killed as possible in Iraq. Your false dichotomies and simplistic take on this issue is frighteningly simpleminded. We arent going to get moderate Muslims to stand up to terrorists as long as we USE terrorism as an EXCUSE to invade random Islamic countries. You obviously dont even know what was going on in Mogadishu, The Somalians KNEW that food was being poured into their country from international forces, and still it wasnt getting to the people as it was being used by the warlords as a political weapon. When the marines first got there THEY WERE CHEERED. When we just picked OUR warlord and didnt oversee that the food got to all the people we lost support and one of the competing warlords attacked us most of the people didnt care by that point. We werent FIGHTING Islamists in Somalia. Virtually the entire country is Islamic, less than one percent of Somalians are Christian. We handled the whole thing badly and at the point we were attacked it was too late to do any good there since we had lost the trust of the people. This black/white Manichean thinking that has infected you will NEVER allow you to really understand the political dynamics you are discussing.
your wrong on pakistan marine the clerics in pakistan are very powerful if musharreff allows american troops to go on the offensive in pakistan he will be overthrown and you will have another anti american muslim theocracy in the middle east but this time with nukes that they were "allowed" to have by the US . US foreign policy coming back to bite in the ass again
Will you lefties stipulate that civilian deaths are unfortunate but inevitable in a war zone? Be happy too as soon as you find ONE Iraqi in uniform that we’re fighting. We invaded the country, dissolved the army and now place our solider fighting in a civil war.
The enemy fighters have no compulsion to protect civilians from harm. Rather they often deliberately put civilians in harm’s way by forcing them to remain in structures from which the enemy initiates ambushes. In many cases, they even have cameramen from Arab TV on notice to come in and video the aftermath for propaganda purposes.
The problem is who is the “enemy fighters”? Sometime the “enemy” is the very Iraq soldiers we have trained. How do wee know exactly who is the "enemy". They don't wear uniforms.
Although I haven’t paid attention 24/7 to the posts on these Iraq war threads, I’ve yet to see an answer from you folks on the left as to what should be the next move after we make our quick pull out from Iraq: negotiation? Hunker down at home? … kiss and make up with the Islamists?
How about diplomacy. Can’t hurt at this point. We tried bullets and bombs and how’s that working? Need I remind you that we have spent the $$ and the national intelligence report says Al Qaeda is as strong today as they were on 9/11. Remember Osama “wanted dead or alive” now would be a good time to make sure he dead.
How about talking to Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordon. How about doing the very thing we should have done before ever sending young men and women to die, diplomacy. I understand that Junior does not have command of the English language but he could have sent someone to give diplomacy a chance. The trillion’s of dollars spent on this war could have provided port security, security for our nuclear plants, border security and so many other things.
Will you lefties stipulate that civilian deaths are unfortunate but inevitable in a war zone?
Be happy too as soon as you find ONE Iraqi in uniform that we’re fighting. We invaded the country, dissolved the army and now place our solider fighting in a civil war.
The enemy fighters have no compulsion to protect civilians from harm. Rather they often deliberately put civilians in harm’s way by forcing them to remain in structures from which the enemy initiates ambushes. In many cases, they even have cameramen from Arab TV on notice to come in and video the aftermath for propaganda purposes.
The problem is who is the “enemy fighters”? Sometime the “enemy” is the very Iraq soldiers we have trained. How do wee know exactly who is the "enemy". They don't wear uniforms.
Although I haven’t paid attention 24/7 to the posts on these Iraq war threads, I’ve yet to see an answer from you folks on the left as to what should be the next move after we make our quick pull out from Iraq: negotiation? Hunker down at home? … kiss and make up with the Islamists?
How about diplomacy. Can’t hurt at this point. We tried bullets and bombs and how’s that working? Need I remind you that we have spent the $$ and the national intelligence report says Al Qaeda is as strong today as they were on 9/11. Remember Osama “wanted dead or alive” now would be a good time to make sure he dead.
How about talking to Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordon. How about doing the very thing we should have done before ever sending young men and women to die, diplomacy. I understand that Junior does not have command of the English language but he could have sent someone to give diplomacy a chance. The trillion’s of dollars spent on this war could have provided port security, security for our nuclear plants, border security and so many other things.
PEARLENE,
I agree with your observations in the first two paragraphs to some extent. There is a civil war going on but it’s the Al Qeada bombers and suicide bombers that are wreaking the most havoc. That’s why the Sunni “insurgents” have begun to side with the Iraqi government. Right. No uniforms. Hard fight to do - but there it is.
Diplomacy. I think that’s what’s going on between Iran and us right now. Unfortunately, (I think) it’s a sham. The Iranian government has a vested interest in their boys (the Al Sadr guys, that is) keeping the civil part of the war going and eventually making it a Shiite victory. (I note that today’s news had the Iraqis and us surrounding some Al Sadr fighters in a showdown).
The “diplomacy” with the trouble makers, Syria and Iran, needs to be the “big stick” type (ala’ Teddy Roosevelt, that is).
Ciao!
Oldie,
Again with the misinformation. By our own (The US Military) estimates, Al Queda makes up perhaps 1% of the violent factions in Iraq.
Get your facts straight.
The “Sunni insurgents” are willing to fight Al Qaeda because we pay them and give them guns. They have no more love for Americans than Al Qaeda and are responsible for the death of American soldiers.
There is no diplomacy between the America and Iran. Junior has “decided” to have talks with Iran regarding Iraq. Junior made is clear that he would ONLY discuss Iraq. That’s not diplomacy.
You can’t start diplomacy with name calling, “axis of evil”. The very meaning of diplomacy is tact.
Oldie,
I can see that I have to go slow with you. Let's start with one of my first questions.
Which side of the civil war should we take, Sunni or Shia?
OldMarine,
First of all, I didn't say that our troops are killing Iraqi civilians indiscriminately; if you read my post carefully, you'll see that. You, like many conservatives, seem to lament the fact that our troops are NOT killing everybody in sight in order to "win" Bush's Clusterf*ck. I'm just saying that to do so would severely undermine our efforts to "win hearts and minds".
As for your comparison of Iraq to WWII...all I can say is that your grasp of history must be based on John Wayne movies and comic books. The geopolitical factors at work here are totally different. Sure, you can find some individual WWII battles that may resemble what is going on, but the overall war was not similar in any way. Even comparing the "Global War on Terror" to WWII is a stretch. We are not fighting Nation States...or even a finite enemy. This conflict will be fought more like the "War on Drugs" than like WWII or even VietNam. 9/11 was carried out by a handful of people plotting in a cave or a tent in the desert...tanks and aircraft carriers are of limited use against such an enemy. As John Kerry stated, this war will be won by intelligence gathering, special forces, and law enforcement cooperation between governments. Not very "macho", but that's reality.
As others have pointed out, you have apparently swallowed the Fox "News" version of the Iraq War, which has little basis in reality. I strongly suggest that you do a little more research on the history of the Middle East over the past century, and you may gain a little more appreciation for the complexity of our current situation.
For Old Marine and others who think there was really an attempt to buy yellow cake in Niger, this is an important read: The Italian Letter: How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq By Peter Eisner and Knut Royce As to our original mission to find the Al Quaida terrorists and remove the Taliban in Afghanistan: The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban By Sarah Chayes The best book regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush Administration: Fiasco by Thomas RicksIt's hard to have a real discussion with you when you are operating under different realities. The facts are the facts. If you trust only right wing tv and radio and web sites for those, you will be sadly uninformed. What you call "left" media is mostly any facts that don't agree with your world view.
But...but...Rush Limbaugh has assured us over and over that Joe Wilson is a liar. You mean, Rush Limbaugh is lying to people like Old Marine? Say it ain't so!