Today's Congressional Testimony

[Chilly]

Bib, I'm really interested in your perspective on this, but I felt this was more deserving of its own thread instead of a private message so we can all discuss it.

 

"In terms of comparison from six months ago, in terms of foreign fighters, I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago," Abizaid said. "In terms of overall strength of the insurgency, I would say it is the same as it was."

 

Was this something that was expected in order for terrorists to try to stop democracy from going into Iraq? Or is it proof that the Bush administration has too cheery an outlook?

 

While I do think the Bush administration does have too cheery an outlook, I think its without a doubt going to be expected that when we invade a place like Iraq and spread democracy, the people who are against us are going to unite against our cause. I do not see the big deal about these comments unlike most of the democrats.

[Ghost of BiB]

First, remember that there is more going on than Iraq.

 

That said, within Iraq there are several different levels of things going on. The foreign interference are the anti-west Jihaadists, basically feeling their oats. There are also hard core professionals, who are honing their skills, for use in other areas of the mid-east and Africa. Good opportunity to kill a few. What is a good thing for IRAQ (notice my bold) is that they are there to attack and kill Americans, primarily - coalition and IDF, in general.

 

The internal guys are predominantly Sunnis who consider themselves disenfranchised. There's Kurdish and Shiite crap going on too, but it's mostly Sunni. For the stability of Iraq (and in the interest of us going away) they are the bigger problem. They primarily target civilians, infrastructure and institutions, mostly just to keep everyone uneasy, wary and off balance. Disruption and attrition.

 

In a round about way, the statement that the "insurgency", or whatever - coupled with the statement that there is a greater influx of foreign fighters, might be a couched way of saying that the overall strategic goals are being slowly achieved. Reading between the lines is a lost art.

 

As for the administration taking a rosy viewpoint, I don't really think they think that, because they knew going in- but what are they supposed to say? They have the opposition on them day and night, because Iraq is an easy target. No one, from either or any side thought going in that this was going to be a slam-bam-thank you ma'am. Lots of petty politics going on, but hey, that's Washington.

 

Iraq is just a piece of the puzzle, it will work out - just not on an MTV Timeline.

 

That probably didn't say a lot, but neither am I.

[Chilly]

In a round about way, the statement that the "insurgency", or whatever - coupled with the statement that there is a greater influx of foreign fighters, might be a couched way of saying that the overall strategic goals are being slowly achieved. Reading between the lines is a lost art.

366134[/snapback]

 

I was not quite sure that the proper way to take this is to think that because the insurgency is slowing down, "backup" fighters are coming in from other countries (if thats what you are saying), thus leading to proof that we ARE leading to a more secure Iraq.

 

Let me ask you a question, based upon your personal opinion, would an expected event in a war be for people opposed to democracy to invade to stand against it in another country?

[Ghost of BiB]

I was not quite sure that the proper way to take this is to think that because the insurgency is slowing down, "backup" fighters are coming in from other countries (if thats what you are saying), thus leading to proof that we ARE leading to a more secure Iraq.

 

Let me ask you a question, based upon your personal opinion, would an expected event in a war be for people opposed to democracy to invade to stand against it in another country?

366145[/snapback]

 

Not what I'm saying. There are two different "wars" going on within Iraq. As for your second paragraph, I doubt it. That doesn't make any sense on several levels. But, we tend to measure things by our standards and by our own metrics. People in other places don't see things the same way.

 

Most people just want to be left alone. Personal opinion? I think the average Iraqi fully understands that in the long run, things aren't going to be a whole heck of a lot different if they get in the way of whoever is in charge. Welcome to the Middle East. You have 2 hour death sentence trials there now, under the new government.

They are not viewing democracy the same as you or I, we base our opinions on American democracy. They know full well, they are never going to have it that way. It simply doesn't fit with the way things have been in that part of the world for millenia.

 

The whole point to the exercise, is NOT to bring democracy to Iraq, it's to do things in the long term to protect our national security. Iraq was a major thorn. A government friendlier to the US is a good thing. We have plenty of other friends there - they were intimidated by Sadaam Hussein. Now, they are not.