John Murtha - A true patriot

[chicot]

Probably the fact that there are about 25 million Iraqis not taking part in the insurgency.  And there is a limit as to how quickly we can train them.

 

A relatively small group of people can still blow up cars and kill civilians but they aren't growing in influence and popular support.  Zarqawi is desperate enough that he's just lashing out at any soft targets he can find, to the point where he just killed any sympathy/support he had in Jordan.  How on earth can anyone look at the coalition/Iraqi forces and the terrorists, and come to the conclusion that the terrorists are winning?  It's really not that difficult for 2-3 people to blow up a car and murder some people, but they aren't achieving anything.  While we're continuing to transfer power/sovereignty to the people of Iraq, what are the terrorists working to do besides kill civilians and even attacking mosques?  In other words, tell me how they plan to win.

 

Better question for anyone in favor of immediate or announced removal of US forces: Why wouldn't the terrorists view that as a victory?  Wouldn't this embolden them in the future by making the US a "paper tiger" like we were after Somalia?  It's basically the only victory they can possibly achieve.

 

And if "losing" the war means we're taking casualties and suffering setbacks, then the United States has "lost" every single war it has ever fought.

507623[/snapback]

 

"Better question for anyone in favor of immediate or announced removal of US forces: Why wouldn't the terrorists view that as a victory? Wouldn't this embolden them in the future by making the US a "paper tiger" like we were after Somalia? It's basically the only victory they can possibly achieve."

 

? Who cares whether or not the terrorists view something as a "victory"? Do you think they're going to attack the US any less if they are not "emboldened"? The criteria for whether to follow a course of action or not should be the likely consequences of that action and not what goes on in the head of a fanatic. People like Zarqawi's group will continue to attack the west until they are captured or killed regardless of whether they are emboldened or not.

[SilverNRed]

? Who cares whether or not the terrorists view something as a "victory"? Do you think they're going to attack the US any less if they are not "emboldened"?

508220[/snapback]

Al Qaeda seemed to gain strength following their "success" in Mogadishu (I say "success" because the operation that Black Hawk Down was based on was technically a success but they did manage to kill enough Americans that we ran). And bin Laden has been clear about his "strong horse" theory.

 

So, yes, I think more people are likely to join up with Al Qaeda if there is the perception that they are achieving something. In contrast, fewer people are likely to side up with them if they see elections in Iraq and terrorist attacks on mosques and civilians.

[SilverNRed]

Well, in two plus years we are up to 700 of those 25 million Iraqi's ready to fight on their own.  So by 2008 we should be up to 1,400 and by 2010, 2,100.  Hmmm.  Of those 25 million Iraqi's, how many of them want to kill us?  How many want us out, now?  If numbers are the problem, and all those Iraqi's the solution, shouldn't we send in more troops? 

508061[/snapback]

So you really think there are only 700 Iraqis ready to fight even if we've been letting them take the lead in operations several times in the past months.

 

Didn't we send in too few to start with?

The start of the war has nothing to do with winning the war. Though Democrats, especially in the Senate, seem to think the two are basically the same thing.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that taking a casualty means we are losing, if they had, you would have mad a hell of a point. Save that line, maybe someone will and you can trot it out then.

That is exactly the implication every time someone trots out the number of US soldiers who have died or the fact that they are dying.

 

The point is that the lethality of the insurgency has not been reduced.

And my point is it's not hard to be lethal. How many people does it take to set off a car bomb?

 

What needs to be achieved for us to leave and deny the terrorists their victory and how will those acievements be measured? Is reducing the lethality of the insurgency something that must be achieved or is that meaningless?

What needs to be achieved is Iraq has to be strong enough to stand on its own 2 feet without constant supervision from us. It'll be years before we're out of there completely so the goal is the steadily transfer power to them. Stamping out the insurgency while rebuilding the country and training Iraqis may not be possible. I think out goal should be to outlast them until the Iraqis are strong enough to take over and do the heavy lifting. We can't leave before that happens.

 

If you want to argue that Iraq would be better off because leaving would force them to step up, that's another argument.

[chicot]

Al Qaeda seemed to gain strength following their "success" in Mogadishu (I say "success" because the operation that Black Hawk Down was based on was technically a success but they did manage to kill enough Americans that we ran).  And bin Laden has been clear about his "strong horse" theory.

 

So, yes, I think more people are likely to join up with Al Qaeda if there is the perception that they are achieving something.  In contrast, fewer people are likely to side up with them if they see elections in Iraq and terrorist attacks on mosques and civilians.

508346[/snapback]

 

What sort of effect on terrorist recruitment do you think the continuing occupation of Iraq has? I don't think I can recall a single instance of an Iraqi suicide bomber prior to the US invasion. Now, not only are they blowing themselves up in Baghdad and Baqubah but they are also being exported to Jordan.

[SilverNRed]

What sort of effect on terrorist recruitment do you think the continuing occupation of Iraq has? I don't think I can recall a single instance of an Iraqi suicide bomber prior to the US invasion.

508783[/snapback]

That may be the result of living in a dictatorship. North Koreans generally don't act up either.

 

I imagine people in countries next to Iraq are wondering why the Iraqis are voting and they are not. And I doubt those suicide bombers attacking mosques are actually making suicide bombing more popular.

[SilverNRed]

Link

 

Commanders are telling Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that ground troops do not understand the generally negative press that their missions receive, despite what they consider significant achievements in rebuilding Iraq and instilling democracy.

 

    The commanders also worry about the public's declining support for the mission and what may be a growing movement inside the Democratic Party to advocate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

 

   "They say morale is very high," said a senior Pentagon official of reports filed by commanders with Washington. "But they relate comments from troops asking, 'What the heck is going on back here' and why America isn't seeing the progress they are making or appreciating the mission the way those on the ground there do. My take is that they are wondering if America is still behind them."

 

Nice work, American Media.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I imagine people in countries next to Iraq are wondering why the Iraqis are voting and they are not.

 

Or maybe not. It's not a western culture; there's a LONG history in the region of deference to leadership rather than individual decision. Longer and deeper, even, than in Russia...and look at the "Why are we doing this?" attitude the Russians had with their initial forays into democracy in the '90s.

 

And I doubt those suicide bombers attacking mosques are actually making suicide bombing more popular.

508880[/snapback]

 

They're playing to their core constituency...just like Bush.

[SilverNRed]

Or maybe not.  It's not a western culture; there's a LONG history in the region of deference to leadership rather than individual decision.  Longer and deeper, even, than in Russia...and look at the "Why are we doing this?" attitude the Russians had with their initial forays into democracy in the '90s.

508892[/snapback]

"Or maybe not" indeed. I'm not over there but if I was, I'd be wondering why the Muslim world is falling further from the top of the heap in the world when it comes to economics, medicine, culture, etc. while the US remains at the top and China and India are taking off. Perhaps some introspection is in order.....

[chicot]

That may be the result of living in a dictatorship.  North Koreans generally don't act up either.

 

I imagine people in countries next to Iraq are wondering why the Iraqis are voting and they are not.  And I doubt those suicide bombers attacking mosques are actually making suicide bombing more popular.

508880[/snapback]

 

It would be pretty difficult to describe Saudi Arabia as a democracy yet Saudis were among those responsible for 9/11, which while not exactly being a suicide bombing, was certainly a suicide mission. As far as acting up in Saddam's time goes, there were coup attempts, assassination attempts on Saddam and Uday, uprisings in the north and south, etc ... Still no suicide bombings though.

 

I think you're misreading the mood in the Arab world. Many Arabs see the current Iraqi government as a US puppet and consider the elections as irrelevant since they believe that the important decisions will be made in Washington not Baghdad. I think a more likely feeling in the "Arab Street" is anger at the invasion and occupation and wondering when, if ever, the US is going to leave.

[SilverNRed]

I think you're misreading the mood in the Arab world. Many Arabs see the current Iraqi government as a US puppet and consider the elections as irrelevant since they believe that the important decisions will be made in Washington not Baghdad. I think a more likely feeling in the "Arab Street" is anger at the invasion and occupation and wondering when, if ever, the US is going to leave.

508919[/snapback]

They were angry at us before the war. They were angry with us when we removed the dictator who killed his own people by the hundreds of thousands. They are angry with us now for helping rebuild.

 

Maybe, just maybe, the "Arab Street" needs to take a long hard look in the mirror. An entire culture based on US/Jewish conspiracy theories isn't doing them any favors.

[X. Benedict]

I thought I agreed with Murtha until I read the Atlantic Monthly's

"Why Iraq doesn't have an Army." The piece is sober and

depressing. (but not as depressing as the talking about the Bills today.)

[erynthered]

That may be the result of living in a dictatorship.  North Koreans generally don't act up either.

 

I imagine people in countries next to Iraq are wondering why the Iraqis are voting and they are not.  And I doubt those suicide bombers attacking mosques are actually making suicide bombing more popular.

508880[/snapback]

 

 

I also wonder, how many of those suicide bombers are really Iraqi.

 

Lets see, vote or blow my ass up? Tough question.

[X. Benedict]

That may be the result of living in a dictatorship.  North Koreans generally don't act up either.

 

508880[/snapback]

Aside from the Kimchee riots of 1997. Take away the peppery cabbage and that

place will blow up.

[chicot]

They were angry at us before the war.  They were angry with us when we removed the dictator who killed his own people by the hundreds of thousands.  They are angry with us now for helping rebuild.

 

Maybe, just maybe, the "Arab Street" needs to take a long hard look in the mirror.  An entire culture based on US/Jewish conspiracy theories isn't doing them any favors.

508930[/snapback]

 

There's a certain amount of truth in that, although I believe they do have some legitimate grievances.

[blzrul]

Depends on which U.S. you're talking about.  If you mean the U.S. soldiers; no, they're following orders and performing to the best of their ablility given the situation they've been placed in.  If you mean the U.S. civilian administration who have made numerous wrong decisions and have done a disservice to the military and the public, as well as those that continue to blindly follow them, then yes, they are losing the war in Iraq, and missed the opportunity to further the war on terrorism (not terror like Bush says; terror is a tactic, terrorism is a movement) in the countries that it was mainly located in before the floodgates opened in Iraq.

507309[/snapback]

Agreed.

 

We have to remember that the invasion was purportedly part of the "war on terror". Given that the number of global terror attacks has increased, not decreased, he's not winning.

 

The miliary people on the ground are doing the best they can in an untenable situation. The deserve better leadership.

 

BiB-leather. Lots.

[X. Benedict]

Of course!

 

Yes - leaving would be wrong.

506798[/snapback]

 

Do you mean to say that "leaving 'now' is wrong" or that leaving in its own

right is wrong?

 

I think we need a sensible plan to get the F out of there. If there is a sensible plan

out there in operation I want to know what it is.

[Mickey]

So you really think there are only 700 Iraqis ready to fight even if we've been letting them take the lead in operations several times in the past months.

 

That figure comes from the Pentagon, why don't you believe them?

Pentagon says only 700 Iraqi troops can operate independently

 

The start of the war has nothing to do with winning the war.  Though Democrats, especially in the Senate, seem to think the two are basically the same thing.

 

Maybe so but that was not the point we were discussing. I asked why you thought the Iraqi's could achieve what we have not been able to do with our vastly superior forces. Your response was because there were 25 million of them, ie, they have more numbers and thus, might be able to outperform us. If numbers are the key, as your post suggests, and our numbers are insufficient, again, as your post suggests, then it is true that we went in to this war without enough troops to get it done. Further, the numbers we have there now are not enough.

 

I don't really buy that the Iraqi's will be able to do any better than us simply based on numbers but that is your point

 

That is exactly the implication every time someone trots out the number of US soldiers who have died or the fact that they are dying.

 

I can't guess at the intentions of every single person who cites casualty statistics. However, that has nothing to do with what we are discussing. The point is that the lethality of the insurgency has not been reduced by our efforts in over two years of trying. Unless your argument is that the lethality of the insurgency doesn't matter or is not an indicator of progress or the lack of it, it merits discussion.

 

And my point is it's not hard to be lethal.  How many people does it take to set off a car bomb?

 

The difficulty or ease with which one can mount an effective insurgency is not really the point. Whether our enemies are mounting an effective insurgency with difficulty or with ease doesn't change the fact that they are mounting an effective insurgency. One which we have not been able to stop in over two years.

 

What needs to be achieved is Iraq has to be strong enough to stand on its own 2 feet without constant supervision from us.  It'll be years before we're out of there completely so the goal is the steadily transfer power to them.  Stamping out the insurgency while rebuilding the country and training Iraqis may not be possible.  I think out goal should be to outlast them until the Iraqis are strong enough to take over and do the heavy lifting.  We can't leave before that happens.

 

"Without constant supervision" What does that mean? That is just as amorphous and immeasurable as "until the Iraqi's can stand on their own". I thank you for trying to answer my question as to what precisely has to be achieved before we can go and how will each be measured. This doesn't really do it, it just restates the same vague, ill-defined and amoeba-like mission no army should be asked to fight.

 

You do acknowledge that it simply might not be possible to achieve all of this. Frankly, among the most thoughtful democrats, this is what they are most worried about as well. They, at least some of them anyway, have simply reached that conclusion before you. Before me as well.

 

Outlasting them is an equally fuzzy standard. What does that mean? How do you measure that? "..until the Iraqi's are strong enough..." How strong is strong enough? How do you measure that? Is the lethality of the insurgency to be considered in that determination? In over two years, the Pentagon itself says there are only 700 able to operate on their own. Does that mean we won't be up to 1,400 until 2007? Will they be up to 2,700 by 2009?

 

If you want to argue that Iraq would be better off because leaving would force them to step up, that's another argument.

 

I really don't know about this. Part of me thinks we have achieved all we can achieve there as it is. It was a twisted broken society long before we ever showed up. There were bad guys there, we went in and killed the worst of them. I don't think we "owe" the Iraqi people anything. If they want a peaceful society, they can have one and they wouldn't really need our help. If they want a civil war, they are going to have one sooner or later no matter what we do.

 

I wonder if the administration isn't aware of this and is just hanging on until an opportune moment arrives where it can credibly claim "victory" and get out. What they want is the Iraqization of the Iraq war. They will leave the split second it is politically tenable to do so. For them, ideally, that would be before the midterm elections next year.

508360[/snapback]

[SilverNRed]

That figure comes from the Pentagon, why don't you believe them?

Pentagon says only 700 Iraqi troops can operate independently

509164[/snapback]

That same link says 27,000 can operate and take the lead role in operations with US support. It's in the next sentence! It's more than a little disingenuous to focus only on the number that you care about for your point in the article. Obviously those 27,000 will be the next 27,000 who can operate completely independently. What is the US support that 27,000 needs anyway? Air support? What? The article also mentions equipment shortages which emphasizes how difficult it is to build up on army basically from scratch.

[Mickey]

That same link says 27,000 can operate and take the lead role in operations with US support.  It's in the next sentence!  It's more than a little disingenuous to focus only on the number that you care about for your point in the article.  Obviously those 27,000 will be the next 27,000 who can operate completely independently.  What is the US support that 27,000 needs anyway?  Air support?  What?  The article also mentions equipment shortages which emphasizes how difficult it is to build up on army basically from scratch.

509180[/snapback]

What it says is that they can operate "...only with strong support from U.S. forces."

 

If we can't leave until they can handle their own security then it doesn't matter if they have 8 billion troops who can operate "...only with strong support from US forces" because that would still require us to be there. The question being, what are the conditons that need to be established so that we can leave?

 

What the administration keeps saying is that we will leave when the Iraqi's can handle things on their own. Well, "..only with strong support from US Forces..." is not "on their own". Quite the opposite in fact.

 

Please understand that my point is not that we should leave, not tommorow, not next week. I just don't want to be there forever, endlessly, for no good reason other than sheer stubborness. Hence the question I have been asking over and over, for the most part unanswered:

 

What precisely has to be achieved before we can leave and how will those achievments be measured? Essentially, what constitutes "victory" in this war?

[erynthered]

If there is a sensible plan

out there in operation I want to know what it is.

509161[/snapback]

 

Why? If there is, should we tell everyone? Because if you know, then everybody should know, right?