John Murtha - A true patriot

[Campy]

Personally, I'd be planning a squaring off with Iran...

506798[/snapback]

That's starting to look more and more inevitable. And scary.

[Ghost of BiB]

Pulling out of Iraq, announcing a schedule, etc...is a very, very bad idea.

 

1. It's pretty obvious to me, at least that this proposed legislation is political tactics in action. The Democratic party is going to make the war the major issue in the next campaign, so the first shots are being fired. Who better to champion the cause than the local Democrat Hawk?

 

2. Announcing a phased or otherwise withdrawl is another U.S. admission of defeat. This is bad on several levels. It obviously will embolden those parties not friendly to us already, and also will demonstrate to those on the fence or allied that we can't be relied on to finish a task. Nations that don't like us, and very much especially terrorists love this scenario. Scaring inmates with dogs doesn't fuel the fervor. American failure, the sense that we can be beaten does.

 

3. Along with item 2, the entire objective of this exercise is to place a stabilized "democratic" Iraq smack in between Iran and Syria, as a counterbalance. Allowing Iraq to fall into chaos will allow the Syrian-Iranian alliances to exert some heavy pressures on Egypt and Saudi Arabia, strongly affecting the geo-political climate of the region. It is not out of the question that the House of Saud could be collapsed. Were that to happen it's Katy Bar the Door.

 

4. This saving lives crap is crap. There aren't enough people in country, of the right mix to reign in what's going on now. How is pulling troops out going to improve this? It will serve no other purpose than to make those remaining more vulnerable.

 

5. WMD was and is, still a major issue. A strong Iraq, working in concert with us and regional powers can effect a powerful counter-proliferation policy. AQ Khan has fingerprints all over Iran. A nuclear armed loose "Caliphate" of a sorts consisting of Iran, Syria, a fundamental Iraq, and a fundamental Saudi Arabia has little to nothing stopping them from dictating anything going on not only in that immediate region, but spillover into Pakistan and India, perhaps further. Israel would be forced into taking some pretty bold steps. And, I mean bold.

 

6. We have made a lot of mistakes in so far as prosecution of this adventure. That doesn't change the fact that for our own national interests, it's a course once charted has to be followed. I'm not going to get into that end of it here, maybe somewhere else.

 

Once again, this isn't a video game, a political tool or a reality show. This is serious business, with wide ranging and serious implications whether success or failure. I wish SOMEONE in the government would get off this "bring democracy to the Iraqi people" BS, and truly try to explain what is going on. One has to dig long and hard to find any of it. Were I you, I'd be insulted that Washington doesn't think we are smart enough to grasp the situation, and were I a Democrat, I'd be incensed that my party was willing to lie to the American people about something that could have dire consequences to their children's futures just to grab back the White House.

 

BTW, I'm not a Republican either. I'm an independant. Also, I think that just because one served in combat, it does not make them a credible expert in foreign policy. That goes right back to bullet 1. But, a lot of folks seem to buy it. Before you start, that statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the man's service or courage.

[PastaJoe]

But if it all goes to hell because we left too early PJ can come on and blame Bush for leaving too early. 

 

You wouldn't want him to have to miss an opportunity like that would you?

506718[/snapback]

 

I blame Bush for invading in the first place. Whether they come home now or later, it was wrong. That won't change. The question is do we end the killing of American soldiers now and let the Iraqis fight it out, or do we wait a few years and a couple more thousand dead, and then let the Iraqis fight it out.

 

And the arguement that Democrats voted for the war is just not true. There was never a declaration of war from the Congress. They authorized him to use force as a last resort, not ASAP. And the Congress was never shown the same intelligence information as the White House claims. They were only shown the intelligence that spoke in the affirmative about possible WMD, they were never shown documents that questioned the intelligence, such as the DIA report that discredited the informant that Chalabi brought forth as someone who they thought was intentionally misleading the CIA, or the original copy of the Niger yellow cake Italian memo that was an obvious forgery to those who have since seen it. They were given copies of the words, but not copies of the original forgery.

[SilverNRed]

Once again, this isn't a video game, a political tool or a reality show. This is serious business, with wide ranging and serious implications whether success or failure. I wish SOMEONE in the government would get off this "bring democracy to the Iraqi people" BS, and truly try to explain what is going on. One has to dig long and hard to find any of it. Were I you, I'd be insulted that Washington doesn't think we are smart enough to grasp the situation, and were I a Democrat, I'd be incensed that my party was willing to lie to the American people about something that could have dire consequences to their children's futures just to grab back the White House.

506845[/snapback]

The only way we lose this war is if it turns out that our politicians don't have the will to win it (something our military men and women certainly do have). More and more, it's looking like that's the case.

[Ghost of BiB]

I blame Bush for invading in the first place.  Whether they come home now or later, it was wrong.  That won't change.  The question is do we end the killing of American soldiers now and let the Iraqis fight it out, or do we wait a few years and a couple more thousand dead, and then let the Iraqis fight it out.

 

And the arguement that Democrats voted for the war is just not true.  There was never a declaration of war from the Congress.  They authorized him to use force as a last resort, not ASAP.  And the Congress was never shown the same intelligence information as the White House claims.  They were only shown the intelligence that spoke in the affirmative about possible WMD, they were never shown documents that questioned the intelligence, such as the DIA report that discredited the informant that Chalabi brought forth as someone who they thought was intentionally misleading the CIA, or the original copy of the Niger yellow cake Italian memo that was an obvious forgery to those who have since seen it.  They were given copies of the words, but not copies of the original forgery.

506865[/snapback]

 

This is your version of an intelligent post, right? I'll refrain from any Kool-Aid comments, because yes, Kool-Aid comments are lame. But please don't try to pass this off as serious.

[Wacka]

Perhaps you slept through what they did to Max Cleland?  No, I know you didn't.  It's hard to believe but there is NOTHING those slimeballs won't stoop to.

506784[/snapback]

 

 

From Rich lowery, National Review Online , Feb 20,2004:

 

...Democrats make it sound as though Cleland's opponent, the four-term Republican congressman Saxby Chambliss, ran an ad something like this: "Sen. Max Cleland," — cue the ominous music — "is he a patriot? Georgia wants to know."

 

Of course, nothing remotely like this ran. The case for foul play rests on a tough anti-Cleland ad that Chambliss broadcast featuring Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The ad didn't morph Cleland into either of these figures or say that he supported them. It noted at its beginning that the United States faced threats to its security as the screen was briefly divided into four squares, with bin Laden and Saddam in two of them and the other two filled with images of the American military.

 

It went on to explain that Cleland had voted 11 times against a homeland-security bill that would have given President Bush the freedom from union strictures that he wanted in order to set up the new department. The bill was co-sponsored by his Georgia colleague Sen. Zell Miller, a fellow Democrat. Bush discussed details of the bill personally with Cleland, and Chambliss wrote him a letter prior to running his ad urging him to support the Bush version. Cleland still opposed it, setting himself up for the charge that he was voting with liberals and the public-employees unions against Bush and Georgia common sense.

 

If you can't criticize the Senate votes of a senator in a Senate race, what can you criticize? Throughout the race, Cleland tried to hide behind the idea that his patriotism was being questioned. A columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted in June of 2002 that "this 'how-dare-you-attack-my-patriotism' ploy, replete with feigned outrage...is a device to put Cleland's voting records off-limits." It didn't work. Chambliss won the crucial endorsement of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which made its nod on the basis of the two candidates' differing records on national-security and veterans issues. The VFW wouldn't have been complicit in a gutter campaign based on smearing a Vietnam veteran.

 

 

Doesn't sound like a slime campaign to me. but of course to the dems, just criticising them is sliming them.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Tom, don't hold back, say what's on your mind and stop beating your bush, I mean about your bush, I mean about Bush, er..um, nevermind.

 

Maybe I could interst you in a sex survey for first graders?

506765[/snapback]

 

I miss the :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: smiley sometimes...

[Campy]

Pulling out of Iraq, announcing a schedule, etc...is a very, very bad idea.

 

1. It's pretty obvious to <snip>

 

... has nothing whatsoever to do with the man's service or courage.

506845[/snapback]

That is a great post BiB. I had already considered the effects of having a friendly Iraq between Syria and Iran, but oddly enough, I never considered the effects of having an anarchy between the two, and what that would do. Good God, just imagine if they started screwing around in the Kashmir. All India and Pakistan need is a reason...

 

If Hussein was good for anything, he at least was a non-fundamentalist and his government, while ruthless, was stable.

 

And nice job working the Caliphate into that too - but I think you probably lost half the board! Do you think the ultimate goal for the likes of Iran is to re-establish an Ottoman empire, or do you think that they'll have problems gathering support from some players they'd need, like a relatively moderate and (now) secular Turkey? Or do you think that really isn't among their goals?

[Ghost of BiB]

That is a great post BiB.  I had already considered the effects of having a friendly Iraq between Syria and Iran, but oddly enough, I never considered the effects of having an anarchy between the two, and what that would do. Good God, just imagine if they started screwing around in the Kashmir.  All India and Pakistan need is a reason...

 

If Hussein was good for anything, he at least was a non-fundamentalist and his government, while ruthless, was stable.

 

And nice job working the Caliphate into that too - but I think you probably lost half the board!  Do you think the ultimate goal for the likes of Iran is to re-establish an Ottoman empire, or do you think that they'll have problems gathering support from some players they'd need, like a relatively moderate and (now) secular Turkey?  Or do you think that really isn't among their goals?

506892[/snapback]

 

Establish a Pan-Islamic Caliphate, but not neccessarily in the Ottoman mode. It is very unlikely that they would either solicit or recieve any support from the likes of Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and several others. To me, the key is in what would become a very destabilizing influence in the region. A coalition of fundamental Islamic governments armed with nuclear weapons isn't going to give anyone moderate many choices. Iran historically has held an exagerated sense of self importance, which induces a sense of internal paranoia. This shapes a lot of their policy decisions - which are generally never good. I view them as the true fox in the henhouse. Meanwhile, China sits back watching what is going on. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the stability that they gave much of the mid-east is gone. Depending on which way the winds blow, China will begin to reach out to whoever holds the real power there. Something not often discussed is the successes this administration has had in cooling the tensions between Pakistan and India. Pakistan is allied, in many ways with us in the GWOT, and we are sharing technology with India to counterbalance Chinese military technical advancement.

 

There are a lot of moving pieces in this puzzle. Focusing on strictly "Troops in Iraq" leads to distraction, not understanding. Once again, a lot of how this is being gone about needs work, but I think it's pretty irresponsible for the Democrats to push everything aside just for the short term happy dance of getting the White House back.

[Mickey]

This is just my take -

 

I agree that it's a vague standard. I can only hope that as the standing Iraqi army grows and becomes better trained than a rag tag militia, that we'll be a lot closer to pulling out.

 

I'm not thinking that there will be a crime rate of 0%, but that when the Iraqis will be able to effectively police themselves.  'Course the Interior Ministry's torture of Sunni's isn't going to help the process along very much either. 

 

As a firm believer that history repeats itself, the baseline that I think we might go by is that of the once-named "Phillippine Insurrection," now called the The Phillippine-American War, which lasted 15 years at the start of the last century.  Instead of a despotic regime, we ousted Spain (at the same time we attacked them in Cuba).  It was never a declared war, and many historians believe that this was intentional because of the increased costs associated with caring for "real" War vets as opposed to those injured "in action." The McKinley administration intended to avoid the extra costs by foregoing a Declaration of War.

 

There are a lot of similarities between the two conflicts - everything from cries of US imperialism to news of atrocities being committed by US troops.  The conflict started in 1899 and lasted to 1913.  We were "nation-building" in the Phillipines until 1946, at which point in time we withdrew our troops because we finally felt that Manilla could govern itself. 

 

Hopefully this mission won't take nearly as long.

 

But it is possible.

506809[/snapback]

How is it determined that the Iraqi's have reached that milestone of being able to "effectively police themselves"? Would you consider what we are doing to be effective policing? If we can't effectively police them in 2 1/2 years, I am not sure what basis we have for believing that the Iraqi's will be able to themselves.

 

The one good thing about an amorphous standard is that you can stretch it to mean anything you want. Politically, the administration can just up and declare victory marshaling what ever tid bits of progress they can and fashion it into an argument that we have achieved victory.

 

This really shouldn't be a democrat/republican thing. I think all sides agree that we are going to leave Iraq, it is just a matter of time and I also think most would prefer, if possible, to get out sooner rather than later. The question is, what must be achieved for us to leave and all I hear in response is some version of "when the Iraqi's can protect themselves..." A laudable goal and it makes sense to me but that standard is impossible to measure and, given our own inability to provide acceptable security, ultimately unrealistic.

 

 

The historical reference is a good one, thanks for the history lesson.

[Ghost of BiB]

How is it determined that the Iraqi's have reached that milestone of being able to "effectively police themselves"?  Would you consider what we are doing to be effective policing?  If we can't effectively police them in 2 1/2 years, I am not sure what basis we have for believing that the Iraqi's will be able to themselves.

 

The one good thing about an amorphous standard is that you can stretch it to mean anything you want.  Politically, the administration can just up and declare victory marshaling what ever tid bits of progress they can and fashion it into an argument that we have achieved victory.

 

This really shouldn't be a democrat/republican thing.  I think all sides agree that we are going to leave Iraq, it is just a matter of time and I also think most would prefer, if possible, to get out sooner rather than later.  The question is, what must be achieved for us to leave and all I hear in response is some version of "when the Iraqi's can protect themselves..."  A laudable goal and it makes sense to me but that standard is impossible to measure and, given our own inability to provide acceptable security, ultimately unrealistic.

The historical reference is a good one, thanks for the history lesson.

507095[/snapback]

 

But, take this in context with my posts. If I am even 20% correct, this once again accomplishes nothing - if the job is not completed, you have the same situation with the Republicans as I described with the Democrats, only worse because they started it. If it takes 20 damn years, I don't want this half done.

[Mickey]

The way out is victory.  That should be priority number one right now.  Sadly, it isn't because plenty of Republican senators are losing their backbone and plenty of Democrats are trying to rewrite history so that people don't know they were in favor of the war two and a half years ago.

 

Even W just woke up from a six month coma and realized he's supposed to be out there talking about why winning the war is important.

 

It's embarassing the people we have as our "leaders" these days.

506797[/snapback]

What constitutes victory in the war in Iraq?

[Mickey]

Pulling out of Iraq, announcing a schedule, etc...is a very, very bad idea.

 

1. It's pretty obvious to me, at least that this proposed legislation is political tactics in action. The Democratic party is going to make the war the major issue in the next campaign, so the first shots are being fired. Who better to champion the cause than the local Democrat Hawk?

 

2. Announcing a phased or otherwise withdrawl is another U.S. admission of defeat. This is bad on several levels. It obviously will embolden those parties not friendly to us already, and also will demonstrate to those on the fence or allied that we can't be relied on to finish a task. Nations that don't like us, and very much especially terrorists love this scenario. Scaring inmates with dogs doesn't fuel the fervor. American failure, the sense that we can be beaten does.

 

3. Along with item 2, the entire objective of this exercise is to place a stabilized "democratic" Iraq smack in between Iran and Syria, as a counterbalance. Allowing Iraq to fall into chaos will allow the Syrian-Iranian alliances to exert some heavy pressures on Egypt and Saudi Arabia, strongly affecting the geo-political climate of the region. It is not out of the question that the House of Saud could be collapsed. Were that to happen it's Katy Bar the Door.

 

4. This saving lives crap is crap. There aren't enough people in country, of the right mix to reign in what's going on now. How is pulling troops out going to improve this? It will serve no other purpose than to make those remaining more vulnerable.

 

5. WMD was and is, still a major issue. A strong Iraq, working in concert with us and regional powers can effect a powerful counter-proliferation policy. AQ Khan has fingerprints all over Iran. A nuclear armed  loose "Caliphate" of a sorts consisting of Iran, Syria, a fundamental Iraq, and a fundamental Saudi Arabia has little to nothing stopping them from dictating anything going on not only in that immediate region, but spillover into Pakistan and India, perhaps further. Israel would be forced into taking some pretty bold steps. And, I mean bold.

 

6. We have made a lot of mistakes in so far as prosecution of this adventure. That doesn't change the fact that for our own national interests, it's a course once charted has to be followed. I'm not going to get into that end of it here, maybe somewhere else.

 

Once again, this isn't a video game, a political tool or a reality show. This is serious business, with wide ranging and serious implications whether success or failure. I wish SOMEONE in the government would get off this "bring democracy to the Iraqi people" BS, and truly try to explain what is going on. One has to dig long and hard to find any of it. Were I you, I'd be insulted that Washington doesn't think we are smart enough to grasp the situation, and were I a Democrat, I'd be incensed that my party was willing to lie to the American people about something that could have dire consequences to their children's futures just to grab back the White House.

 

BTW, I'm not a Republican either. I'm an independant. Also, I think that just because one served in combat, it does not make them a credible expert in foreign policy. That goes right back to bullet 1. But, a lot of folks seem to buy it. Before you start, that statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the man's service or courage.

506845[/snapback]

Bib, the war is going to be the major issue in the election next year because it is the major issue. The fighting, the dying, the critical importance it has to the present and future of the country makes it so, not the democrats. The house GOP is trying to force a quick vote on Iraq for political reasons so the idea that the war is enmeshed with politics is hardly one sided. As far as a party being desparate enough to get back the WH, well, the other party has been lying or simply BS'ing in their own quest to hang on to the WH. It would be nice to think we could separate war from politics but that isn't realistic. I think someone said once that war is simply an extension of politics.

 

A stable "democratic" Iraq would be wonderful. Is it possible though? Tell me why the Iraqi's are going to be able to get a handle on an insurgency whose lethality we have not been able to reduce ourselves despite our superior firepower, training, technology and virtually unlimited resources? We have hammered away with all our power now for 2+ years and the insuregency rages on. Isn't it possible that our presence in Iraq, especially an endless one, could be more destabilizing to the region than the alternative?

 

Maybe we have achieved all we can reasonably expect to achieve there.

 

What has to be achieved before we can leave? How will we achieve those goals?

Please tell me because if I hear "stay the course" or "we will leave when the Iraqi's can defend themselves" one more time, I'm going to scream.

[Mickey]

But, take this in context with my posts. If I am even 20% correct, this once again accomplishes nothing - if the job is not completed, you have the same situation with the Republicans as I described with the Democrats, only worse because they started it. If it takes 20 damn years, I don't want this half done.

507113[/snapback]

I don't want it half done either but I also don't want to hang on long after all that was realisitically doable has been done just becase it would be bad for the fortunes of either party. Can it be done? That is the question. If it can, why are we so far from getting it done 2+ years into it?

[pope zimli]

A respected historian said there were three rules involving a foreign power getting involved in a civil war in another country. Rule one...Don't. rule 2 If you can't follow Rule 1...pick a side. Rule 3 If you have to pick a side, make sure your side wins. The civil war is going to happen, now or whenever we pull out. Keeping our troops there just increases American casualties before it happens. If we are going to get involved and violate rule one (which we shouldn't)...we have to pick between the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shiites. If we pick a side we pick the one that will win and support it. The Kurds are most acceptable, but they carry heavy duty baggage in that they have their own enemies (Turkey being a major one). The Shiites lead to a strong Islamic state. The Sunnis will give us a younger improved Saddam. Murtha is right. Get out and follow rule one.

[Ghost of BiB]

A respected historian said there were three rules involving a foreign power getting involved in a civil war in another country.  Rule one...Don't.  rule 2 If you can't follow Rule 1...pick a side. Rule 3 If you have to pick a side, make sure your side wins.  The civil war is going to happen, now or whenever we pull out.  Keeping our troops there just increases American casualties before it happens.  If we are going to get involved and violate rule one (which we shouldn't)...we have to pick between the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shiites.  If we pick a side we pick the one that will win and support it.  The Kurds are most acceptable, but they carry heavy duty baggage in that they have their own enemies (Turkey being a major one).  The Shiites lead to a strong Islamic state.  The Sunnis will give us a younger improved Saddam.  Murtha is right.  Get out and follow rule one.

507140[/snapback]

 

This has become the proverbial self licking ice cream cone. I still think that out and out civil war can be avoided. What really chaps my ass is that a lot of the native insurgency could have been avoided simply by understanding Arab and African culture. For one thing, kicking down doors has a much different meaning there than even here. For that type of violation, an culturally emeshed Arab male has an obligation to exact revenge as it demonstrates his inability to protect his household. One can list dozens of other examples.

 

To the plus side, The external terrorist issues are getting better. Zarqawi has seriously overstepped and not only has HIS ass in some hot water, but also Bin-Laden's by proxy. They are going to have to adjust their tactics to continue any real influence. Fortunately, Iran doesn't like them - but sometimes makes bedfellows of convienience.

 

Will the Iraqis ever recognize their new government as a people? Maybe, it's not impossible. But, it's going to take more than a year. And now, we have to not only deal with internal insurgency, external terrorists, Iran stirring up crap, Syria stirring up crap...but also have to police the very people we put in charge.

 

Iraq wasn't Iraq not that long ago. If it weren't for where the oil reserves lie, letting it restructure into 3 separate entities might not be a bad plan. If there were some way to do that and still share in the oil revenues it might make things easier.

[PastaJoe]

The vote in Congress last night on immediate withdrawl was a joke. It was a Republican proposal that was meant to distort the message that John Murtha was trying to send. He never said they should immediately withdrawl, he said it should be phased over 6 months. The Republican leadership wouldn't let his proposal come up for a vote, because they know that it would have got support from even some Republicans. More of the same old, "stay the course, everything's fine, now move along, nothing to see."

 

People seem to forget that Vietnam didn't collapse to the Communists right after America withdrew. In fact the South Vienamese who took up the battle themselves were making progress and winning. It was their own internal political corruption that prevented the necessary supplies and money that the U.S. was still providing from reaching the South Vietnamese soldiers, and which led to their eventual defeat. If Iraqis are really committed to making a democracy work, and they don't want to break up into three entities, then we can continue to provide the supplies and money and insure their security from external threats in the near-term, and it's up to them to have the conviction to stand up for themselves and provide their internal security. If they're not willing, then it's all for naught.

[chicot]

This has become the proverbial self licking ice cream cone. I still think that out and out civil war can be avoided. What really chaps my ass is that a lot of the native insurgency could have been avoided simply by understanding Arab and African culture. For one thing, kicking down doors has a much different meaning there than even here. For that type of violation, an culturally emeshed Arab male has an obligation to exact revenge as it demonstrates his inability to protect his household. One can list dozens of other examples.

 

To the plus side, The external terrorist issues are getting better. Zarqawi has seriously overstepped and not only has HIS ass in some hot water, but also Bin-Laden's by proxy. They are going to have to adjust their tactics to continue any real influence. Fortunately, Iran doesn't like them - but sometimes makes bedfellows of convienience.

 

Will the Iraqis ever recognize their new government as a people? Maybe, it's not impossible. But, it's going to take more than a year. And now, we have to not only deal with internal insurgency, external terrorists, Iran stirring up crap, Syria stirring up crap...but also have to police the very people we put in charge.

 

 

Iraq wasn't Iraq not that long ago. If it weren't for where the oil reserves lie, letting it restructure into 3 separate entities might not be a bad plan. If there were some way to do that and still share in the oil revenues it might make things easier.

507160[/snapback]

 

 

You really hit the nail on the head there. The truly tragic thing about Iraq is that much of the insurgency could actually have been avoided and Iraq could now be relatively stable. There was actually quite a lot of goodwill towards the US, even in the so-called "Sunni triangle". Unfortunately the appalling decisions made in the first few months following the fall of Saddam created ideal conditions for the insurgency to take hold. The decision to disband the Iraqi army gave the insurgency hundreds of thousands of military trained men with no stake in the new Iraq and a major grudge against the occupation. The failure to secure military bases meant that many of them were looted and almost certainly much of that weaponry is now in the hands of the insurgents. I know that in the town where my relatives were living, there was a military base nearby and the townsfolk were begging the US soldiers to do something about it due to the dubious characters walking off with all sorts of military hardware. They were told that since they had no orders on this subject, they could do nothing. The decision to sack baathists from jobs even when there was no evidence that they had committed any crimes also alienated the Sunni community and helped recruitment to the insurgency. Many teachers, doctors etc ... were sacked simply because they were members of the Baath party and the fact of the matter is that many people joined the party because it was the only way to get a better job. As you referred to, heavy-handed tactics in central Iraq also caused a lot of bad feeling, as was admitted by US commanders. Things did improve but by then the damage was done.

 

As far as Iraq splitting into three entities go, the Kurds certainly want their own state (but Turkey would never allow this) but I don't really think the differences between Sunni and Shiite Arabs in Iraq are so great. Certainly Zarqawis lot have been doing their best to stir up trouble, but for years the communities were very close with intermarriage being common.

[Ghost of BiB]

You really hit the nail on the head there. The truly tragic thing about Iraq is that much of the insurgency could actually have been avoided and Iraq could now be relatively stable. There was actually quite a lot of goodwill towards the US, even in the so-called "Sunni triangle". Unfortunately the appalling decisions made in the first few months following the fall of Saddam created ideal conditions for the insurgency to take hold. The decision to disband the Iraqi army gave the insurgency hundreds of thousands of military trained men with no stake in the new Iraq and a major grudge against the occupation. The failure to secure military bases meant that many of them were looted and almost certainly much of that weaponry is now in the hands of the insurgents. I know that in the town where my relatives were living, there was a military base nearby and the townsfolk were begging the US soldiers to do something about it due to the dubious characters walking off with all sorts of military hardware. They were told that since they had no orders on this subject, they could do nothing. The decision to sack baathists from jobs even when there was no evidence that they had committed any crimes also alienated the Sunni community and helped recruitment to the insurgency. Many teachers, doctors etc ... were sacked simply because they were members of the Baath party and the fact of the matter is that many people joined the party because it was the only way to get a better job. As you referred to, heavy-handed tactics in central Iraq also caused a lot of bad feeling, as was admitted by US commanders. Things did improve but by then the damage was done. 

 

As far as Iraq splitting into three entities go, the Kurds certainly want their own state (but Turkey would never allow this) but I don't really think the differences between Sunni and Shiite Arabs in Iraq are so great. Certainly Zarqawis lot have been doing their best to stir up trouble, but for years the communities were very close with intermarriage being common.

507174[/snapback]

 

I can't disagree with any of that. As a matter of fact, I agree with it. In the case of the nazis, the fascists, the communists, whatever Japan called a party...we knew that "the trains had to run on time". Why this was handled so poorly, I'll never understand. We'd be about out of there by now if maybe three or four things had been done differently. I also understand the heavy handed tactics, too. When one is being shot at, one does not respond wearing kid gloves. But, sadly, it was very hard for the guys on the ground to be able to analyze, and pick and choose. That should have been done upfront to the best of anyone's ability, and as a continual process. No method or answer would have been perfect, but it could have been done better. Maybe a newer understanding between all concerned can be reached. I don't know, but at least now I think both sides are trying to make the effort.

[Ghost of BiB]

The vote in Congress last night on immediate withdrawl was a joke.  It was a Republican proposal that was meant to distort the message that John Murtha was trying to send.  He never said they should immediately withdrawl, he said it should be phased over 6 months. The Republican leadership wouldn't let his proposal come up for a vote, because they know that it would have got support from even some Republicans.  More of the same old, "stay the course, everything's fine, now move along, nothing to see."

 

People seem to forget that Vietnam didn't collapse to the Communists right after America withdrew.  In fact the South Vienamese who took up the battle themselves were making progress and winning.  It was their own internal political corruption that prevented the necessary supplies and money that the U.S. was still providing from reaching the South Vietnamese soldiers, and which led to their eventual defeat.  If Iraqis are really committed to making a democracy work, and they don't want to break up into three entities, then we can continue to provide the supplies and money and insure their security from external threats in the near-term, and it's up to them to have the conviction to stand up for themselves and provide their internal security.  If they're not willing, then it's all for naught.

507173[/snapback]

 

Which in practical terms insofar as accomplishing anything meaningful is the same thing. Whatever the "withdrawl" plan is, isn't or might be...setting a defined time line does nothing more than play into the adversaries hands.