Democrats & Liberals Archives

Well said, Pundit. Last month, the MSM reported that incidents of worldwide terrorism have increased by over 300% since President Bush decalred “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. Facts like this, coupled with the reckless hubris of administation comments (e.g., “The insurgency is in its last throes”) are feeble PR stunts designed to place the smallest seed of hope in our collective heads that maybe…just maybe, things really are working out for us in Iraq. Well, they are not, and in all likelihood probably never will.

From the very beginning of this ill-concieved fiasco, we made no attempt whatsoever to attempt to understand the enemy. And repetitive sound bites like, “They hate us for our freedom” only fuel the administration’s ignorance — and the public’s misunderstanding — of the real reasons why we are losing this horrible war we had no business fighting in the first place.

For the insurgents, this is a religious war, not a political war, yet this administration continues to bumble along, believeing that freedom, or the lack thereof, is the real reason for the insurgents’ discontent. Absurd. Religious motivation, not political ideology, is what motivates insurgents to blow themselves (and others) up in an attempt to seek paradise, and it continues to motivate them. In the case of Iraq, the presence of occupying forces (the Great Satan) are to be eliminated to further religious, not political goals.

Further, many recent suicide bombings in Iraq have been aimed not at the Great Satan, but at Iraqi citizens. It is funadmentalist Sunni muslims killing Iraqi Shiite muslims, or killing Iraqi
Sunni’s not sufficiently adherent to fundamentalist Sunni concepts of Koranic teachings. It is also fundamentalist Sunni muslims killing politicians in the new Iraqi government irrespective of muslim religious affiliation by suicide bombings or other methods of assassination, as the objective is to overthrow the secular government in favor of a fundamentalist muslim government: again, the goal is religious dominance.

So…we are losing this war for many reasons (4th grade planning, not nearly enough troops, no exit strategy, etc.), though the main reason is that we have never come to understand our enemy — one of the cardinal rules of warfare this administration was, and continues to be, too arrogant to concern itself with.

American Pundit,

Great post.

We can still get back on track.
We elect our next leader based on his or her credibility, not fear and spin. We have that newly elected president repair relations with the U.N. Hopefully Bolton hasn’t killed any chance of that by 2008.
We as a nation reach out to the Muslim world to develope a trust that is clearly nonexistent thanks in part to our Middle East policies, the 9/11 attacks and this inept, bullheaded administration.
We conduct a thorough non-partisan investigation into the intelligence gathering that led to our President invading Iraq. We ask for cooperation from all nations in the fight against terrorism.
We create a world coalition against terror. We build alliances with the Middle East that are based on mutually beneficial policies and put some much needed thought into the Palestinian/Isreali conflict.
We can then place this nation where it should have been right after 9/11. Fighting terrorists responsible for the attacks and building a coalition that consists of most if not all nations to fight terror and those who promote and support it.

OK… here’s a good question: as Democrats (assuming this issue gives us the next round of elections) What do we do to make it all better?

I have no idea how to get us out of the mess Bush has so forcefully placed us in. I still like my single idea of getting of the oil addiction and allowing the Middle East money to dry up and go away… but that’s also a long term solution. For the immediate… no idea. We have troops on the ground - and if they leave, things will completely degenerate. I don’t think we can pull this new government down and force a democracy on Iraq. I guess we could just pull back slowly, and let Iraq and Iran be as they are and try to contain them as best we can.

(Damn, that sounds familiar…)

Thanks for the post, Mr. Magoo. Just so we’re all on the same page, you rightly point out that we’re facing (at least) two different opponents in Iraq: Sunni insurgents and a relatively small number of foreign jihadists.

The Sunnis are absolutely fighting for political reasons, and the jihadists are there to kill some Zionist Crusaders.

Andre, excellent suggestions. We can get back on track in the war on terror… uh, I mean the struggle against violent extremism… but we lost Iraq.

Oh, and since Bolton was a recess appointment, he’s only at the UN until early 2007 when the next Congressional session starts. That’s the good news. :)

My pleasure, pundit. And thanks. But I respectfully disagree that the Sunnis are fighting for political reasons. They are fighting for their religious ideology.

By going to war in an Islamic country (under false pretences) our president offered to Osama — now considered by fundamentalist Islam a modern Saladin — on a silver platter an opportunity to vastly expand his jihad. After all what we now have, like it or not, is another Christain crusade. Osama is absolutely right in that regard, at least, and he could not have asked for a better reason to pursue and expand jihad worldwide. Halleluia! And God help us all.

OK… here’s a good question: as Democrats (assuming this issue gives us the next round of elections) What do we do to make it all better?

The obvious solution is to make a sustained commitment of enough troops to crush the insurgency and secure the borders, so we can work on reconstruction and create strong, lasting democratic institutions at our leisure.

The problem is, by the time Democrats are in a position to make that happen, there won’t be any chance of it happening. This thing is pretty much over.

One of the biggest mistakes President Bush made was to hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis before the country was secure, before Iraqi security forces were trained, before the militias were disarmed, before a secular constitution was written, before Iraq had an uncorrupt judiciary (Iraq’s new government is already on the State Department list of human rights abusers), before Saddam’s socialist economy was privatized…

In short, President Bush lost the chance to mold Iraq into a free-market liberal democracy on June 29, 2004. Iraq is a sovereign nation. They can tell us to piss off any time we suggest a reform they don’t like.

And yet, AP, you argue for more troops. There aren’t enough troops available to put down the insurrection and secure Iraqi borders against migrating terrorist recruits. This red herring argument of yours seems to be an attempt to curry favor for Democrats by conservatives who have lost faith in Bush’s handling of the Iraq war. But trying to do so with a lie about more troops, when there never were sufficient troops to create victory in Iraq for American values, is the kind of political clap trap I despise.

AP:

You have heard me discuss my brother-in-law before (retired Marine colonel).

He is not quite so pessimistic about our chances (almost, but not quite) if certain military/civil affairs strategies are changed.

1. Put Iraq “on hold.” Maintain status quo for the time being so energy can be used where it counts.

2. Redirect that energy to Afghanistan where we actually do have a better chance of making lasting change. Another military initiative will be required in a “sweep manuver” to corral those who are problematic and capture or exterminate them. First things first. Finish in Afghanistan. This could also help to somewhat polish our tarnished image around the world.

3. Seal the borders to Iraq from Pakistan and Syria, and potentially Saudi. A big task. But not impossible. Military planning is key, but we have the people to pull it off if and only if the civilian leaders keep their fingers out and stop under funding/under equiping/under manning the operation.

4. Re-initiate major combat actions in Iraq. Again, using the “sweep manuver” he alluded to, in one fell swoop, over a period of time (perhaps 2 mos), drive the insurgents et al to a given corral area and finally deal with it.

The sweeps are fairly slow, arduous manuvers. But very thorough. Door to door in the cities and inch by inch in the desert. Recover and destroy any and all military equipment as you go.

Once these 4 steps are completed, we have options that open up. Dividing the country as equally as possible for the three major factions to rule individually is still an option. And, according to his sources, one that the leaders of the factions are at least somewhat open to.

I am not advocating any of these positions or actions without further research. But, from a well respected, very experienced combat vet, I think there is some validity.

I do think what NATO is doing in Afghanistan can be effictive. I also keep alluding to your post of a couple months ago regarding 4GW, and how Vietnam lessons were lost on our civilian leaders of the military.

As long as our forces continue to act as an occupying force with no end strategy, they will be viewed as an enemy occupying force even by our allies in the region. Then, without our troups living amongst those they are protecting and liberating, without doing what needs to be done to gain their respect and appreciation (hearts and minds), our mission will fail.

To quote Dr Richard Kimball:

“It’s not over yet”

U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq - Administration Is Shedding ‘Unreality’ That Dominated Invasion, Official Says

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

“What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground,” said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. “We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we’re in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning.”

We cannot leave Iraq. No matter what it takes, we must see it through. I am sure the troops will be willing to rotate indefinitely for as long as it takes.

AP,
Good post!
I’ve said before, and I’ll repeat it, we’ve yet to see the real reason why Iraq was such a mistake. It’s going from a cluster**** to a multiple, regionalwide cluster****.

But the damage is done, and the time when boots on the ground would have made the difference is long past, if it was ever an option in the first place. We’re just not in the position to add troops for any extended period.

It’s hard to see how more aggressive tactics would make any difference. Seems our military is being pretty aggressive already.

Partition may yet become an option, which I always thought was the best choice in the first place. Of course, it means much time & many lives will have been wasted keeping together the colonial cut-and-paste creation we call ‘Iraq.’

After more than two years of occupation which has left Iraqis free of Saddam - but arguably worse off than they were before the war

Did you know, BTW, that electrical supplies have passed pre-war levels? Probably not.

—-
No serious number of Iraqi’s would argue this - why do you?
Did you know, BTW, that electrical supplies have passed pre-war levels? Probably not.
—-

Whooo hooo! Back to where they started… minus 100,000 friends and relatives. Yea… lot’s more elbow room, don’t ya just love it!

The Kurds are in good shape- but then, they’ve been more or less independent since the First Gulf War.

The Sunnis are worse off, and Bagdhad, the capital of Iraq, is a mess.

The Shias are in better shape. But what they have in mind is very different from our visions of Iraq.

Electrical generation is back to even? 2.5 years, hundreds of billions of dollars, almost 1900 US servicement dead, over 13,000 wounded; tens of thousands or Iraqis dead; US international relations strained, at best; resources taken away from Afghanistan, and the hunt for OBL; and electrical generation is back to even?

To add insult to injury, oil production is still @ 25% below pre-Saddam levels, 1.6 bbl v 2.1 bbl.

AP:

If we look at America’s self interest there are two things we can point to as positives.

1. We now now Iraq is not (nor was) a direct threat to the US. We know there are no WMD in Iraq. That is something we did not know before the invasion. I would argue that with the corruption in the UN and the “cards” that were on the table after 9/11 that is something we did need to know. I would also concede that we have gained this knowledge the hard way at far to great an expense.

2. We can have a government in Iraq that is not a threat to it’s neighbors. (ie our oil supply). The fix after the last war was a temporary one. Clinton and Congress were correct in calling for regime change in Iraq. The status quo in Iraq (before 9/11) was falling apart. Clinton and early Bush II were failing at holding the coalition together.

If this is achieve then our strategic interest has been secured.

What this means is that America can pull it’s troops out of the area (eventually) not to where they were before the invasion, but more likely to where they were before 1990.

Although I agree with you that Bush’s idealized vision of a model democracy may not be achieved. However, if these two above two items are achieved, I would disagree with you that “Iraq was lost”.

Craig

Craig -

Sorry, but I do not buy that invading Iraq was the only way to know about WMDs. The intelligence suggested that most if not all of his WMD and WMD related program activities had been dismantled. The UN Inspectors were 30 days from their final assessment - which was leaning towards Saddam having no WMDs. By invading Iraq, we left open 1000s of tons of conventional weapons that are now in the hands of people who oppose our military and are using against us.

Also - Saddam acted as a strong stabilizing force within that region. He was not Saudi or American friendly, but he was not friendly to Islam either. He was the wild card, and nobody could gain a foothold in that area because of him. If the Islamic fundamentalist get control of Iraq… with Iran… Saudi and Israel are both in extreme danger… as well as our oil.

Craig,
Add to tony’s comments the fact that Iraq is still not producing oil at prewar levels, and the recent spike in oil price (caused by “concerns over regional instability”), and the only ones who have really won anything are the oil companies.

Tony:

The UN Inspectors were 30 days from their final assessment - which was leaning towards Saddam having no WMDs.

The same UN that was compromised by having their hand in the Iraqi pocket. If I were president, I personally would not have trusted the UN on this one. In hind site it would have been better to “strip search” the country ourselves and then leave it as is. There were too many reports of WMD.

Also - Saddam acted as a strong stabilizing force within that region. He was not Saudi or American friendly, but he was not friendly to Islam either.

I disagree with you on this one. He invaded Kuwait. We had to go to war to kick him out. He also was in a long war with Iraq. Neither one of those events could be called “stablizing”..

Brian:

Add to tony’s comments the fact that Iraq is still not producing oil at prewar levels, and the recent spike in oil price (caused by “concerns over regional instability”), and the only ones who have really won anything are the oil companies.

Oil prices have risen for a variety of reasons not the least of which is that it has risen over the last thirty years at rates lower than the over all rate of inflation. Almost every other commodity has risen recently because of a strong economy. Should we blame all of the other commodity increases on Iraq as well?

Besides an temporary increase in a commodity does not mean that Iraq has been “lost”.

I will tell you what is lost. The Bush doctrine of preemption. We cannot go to war because of a perceived threat. The reason is two fold. From my conservative picture of the war, our intelligence was wrong. (Reason number one). From a liberal perception of the Iraqi war, Presidents (or this president) is not trustworthy. They lie to get us into war. I disagree that Bush lied to get us into war because I think there is ample proof that the intelligence community world wide believed Iraq had WMD. IT DOESN’T MATTER. Either way this war has proven that preemption is a wrong way to go to war.

I hope as a country we have learned for future generations that going to war for preemption is wrong.

Craig

—-
Either way this war has proven that preemption is a wrong way to go to war.
—-
OK… damn straight. On that note - I’m going home for the day.

Craig, you didn’t know that Iraq was not a material threat to the US before we invaded? Iraqis didn’t even control their own airspace, how could they hit a target on the other side of the world.

We were lied to from the beginning. Iraq was no material threat the to the U.S. I was one of the many people who saw through these lies all the the time. Unfortunately, I and other people who saw through these lies were in the minority. I opposed us going to war from the beginning. But the public was blinded by fear and lies that they backed it. So we went to war.

Now that the war has proved difficult, they want to leave. I am opposed to us leaving Iraq as it is now. This administration, and thus the country never had a clue as to what we were doing, what we should be doing, or what it would take to bring about the stated results. Now, that we have committed the resources and spent the lives we should follow through with it and get it done. If the plan proposed by Chi Chi’s brother-in-law would work we should do it. However we should add some form of education on the nature and effects of individual rights.

A viable democracy can be built in Iraq but we have to pay the price. I agree with Mr. Magoo; this is a war of ideas. The Iraqi men are not at peace with the concept of democracy, nor do they value the rights that are outlined in the US by the bill of rights. Hence, when left to their own devices, they move toward Islamic theocracy because those are the ideas prevalent in their society.

We have to find people, Muslims, who advocate democracy and personal freedom and give them medium to voice their ideas as well as protection for their lives and families. They will be under attack until the public comes to see that people who want them free are not their enemies, people who want them living in some form of authoritian government are their enemies.

We can’t take a soft hand here. Now the people in Iraq are afraid of the terrorists. They should be afraid of the law; they should be afraid of us. You can’t be Mr. Nice Guy if you want to enforce order. Now insurgents attack police stations, run inside, free prisoners, take weapons and leave. Everyone is afraid to provide info on the insurgents. We need them afraid not to reveal info on insurgents. If we leave Iraq like this then we will have made matters worse.

Craig:

While it is common to call pre-emption a Bush policy, I think its more accurate to consider it a US policy. It’s true that Bush has gone to war from a pre-emptive standpoint, but he certainly is not the only President to use pre-emption as a reason for military action.

Remember that Viet Nam did not attack the US directly—in that sense, that war was pre-emptive in nature.

Remember also that the US has engaged in military action (not to the degree of war, but certainly to the degree of military involvement and including the use of aircraft, munitions etc) a number of times in the past couple decades. I can cite Somalia, Kosovo, the rest of the Balkans, and Panama as examples where the US was not attacked, yet we engaged in a military manner.

The most recent pre-emptive military attack was Operation Desert Fox in 1998, during which we bombed Iraq heavily for 4 days due to the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that he was not complying with UN resolutions. This was, in my opinion, a valid use of military force, but was nonetheless a pre-emptive attack.

Of course, all of the above uses of military force were prior to George W. Bush’s tenure as President. I’d think that this shows that the use of pre-emption as a reason for military action predates him.

Craig,
Saddam Hussein served as a stabilizing in Iraq by holding the country together, using brutality. He was a destabilizing force outside Iraq in terms of his military aggressions; however, his secular Baathist party served as a counterweight to the Islamic fundamentalists.

Darrius
“A viable democracy can be built in Iraq but we have to pay the price.”

Why not let them determine their own fate? Why not let self-rule and self-determination rule the outcome?

As an occupying power, the US has a legal and moral obligation to provide security. We have provided some stability for the Kurds and the Shia. Partition the colonial fiction we call Iraq, and let them form their own countries.

The Kurds will do just fine (if they can stay out of wars with their neighbors).

The Shia will become an Islamic Republic closely allied with Iraq. But why not restrict that outcome to the southern third of the country, rather than the entire country?

The Sunni region of central Iraq could form it’s own nation. We could agree to heavily subsidize them, and, perhaps with help from Sunni Arab neighbors, create an industrialized state in central Iraq that doesn’t rely upon oil for its lifeblood.

There’s no defeat or shame implied in partioning the country, just common sense.

—-
Remember that Viet Nam did not attack the US directly—in that sense, that war was pre-emptive in nature.
—-

Actually - it was an ‘attack on US ships in the Gulf Of Tonkin that set off the actual full-scale military action. Funny, that too ended up being ‘faked.’

Darrius

Craig, you didn’t know that Iraq was not a material threat to the US before we invaded? Iraqis didn’t even control their own airspace, how could they hit a target on the other side of the world.

Buy giving WMD to terrorists.

joebagodonuts:

While it is common to call pre-emption a Bush policy, I think its more accurate to consider it a US policy. It’s true that Bush has gone to war from a pre-emptive standpoint, but he certainly is not the only President to use pre-emption as a reason for military action.

phx8

Saddam Hussein served as a stabilizing in Iraq by holding the country together, using brutality. He was a destabilizing force outside Iraq in terms of his military aggressions; however, his secular Baathist party served as a counterweight to the Islamic fundamentalists.

I agree with that. Just like Castro is a stabilizing force in Cuba right now. Almost every government is a stabilizing force. Actually that that isn’t in our strategic interest. The only part we should care about are governments that our destabilizing to our national interest. Iraq was destabilizing as evidenced by two wars against it’s neighbors.

phx8:

Why not let them determine their own fate? Why not let self-rule and self-determination rule the outcome?

I agree as long as the outcome meets our self interest which should be stability in the region. If they chose via a vote a government that was different than our comfort level, but were no threat to their neighbors, then who cares? It would be hard to say “all is lost in Iraq”.

Craig

Great post. (all of them - anyone even interested enough to care or comment really) Fact and reality. What is really sad is that the majority of people are NOT this informed about what’s going on in the world. And they vote.
(The reality shows, the media (etc) could better serve the public and stress the importance of this kind of knowledge being power.)

The show ?24? is somewhat of a start to gain this kind of interest and the intelligence is commendable. It may not fit into reality of current events at the moment - but it IS encouraging ?political interest?.

Children are the future. Since the majority of people DO read the newspaper and/or watch the nightly news and have families whose lives are dependent on these “truths and facts” - may I suggest finding a way to reach out even in more ways to the future - (the children) by if nothing else - having 5 minutes of intelligent political knowledge implanted in our future? For example: more mini pages every day of the week - would probably sell more papers - and ?5 minutes of Big Bird talking interpreting the politics in a way that would create awareness and interests at very early ages - every night on the nightly news - (not just PBS)
World News Tonight and Big Bird

The greatest war effort accomplishment yet would be for those in control of that knowledge and power to impress the importance of “Political Knowledge” to our children. (The younger the better) Send these military leaders to talk to our children about the reality of their futures and its importance.?

The greatest gift we can leave our children is knowledge and faith that not only better secures their future but puts their world around them in their control as informed voters. Which ?hopefully,? would also down a very long road give us ?powerful knowledgeable candidates to choose from as well. (presidents).

This red herring argument of yours… is the kind of political clap trap I despise.

So David, you agree that a large number of troops would be necessary to crush the insurgency and seal the borders, but you don’t believe we can assemble enough troops. I think we can.

But, as I said in that post, Republicans aren’t interested in commiting the number of troops necessary. The Bush administration and the Pentagon are - and always have been - more focused on disengaging rather than winning.

So, I suppose a cynical person could see Democrat’s calls for a winning plan that they know Republicans will never support as a red herring.

But think about this: Military recruitment levels are down because we’re losing. Popular support for President Bush is down because we’re losing. Nobody likes a loser. Nobody wants to be associated with a loser.

I think a bold plan for securing Iraq and sealing the borders so reconstruction could gain momentum and Iraqis could develop strong democratic institutions in peace would have the support of most Americans.

But of course, you’re right, the ruling Republican Party will never give us a win in Iraq. the Bush administration is intent on quickly cobbling together an Iraqi government - even an anti-American, human-rights abusing, fundamentalist regime - so they can disengage.

Call it political clap-trap if you want, but increasing troop levels and securing Iraq is the only plan that will turn certain defeat in Iraq into some sort of victory.

Chi Chi, excellent post. Man, I just have a lot of respect for Marine officers.

1. Put Iraq “on hold.” Maintain status quo for the time being so energy can be used where it counts.

2. Redirect that energy to Afghanistan where we actually do have a better chance of making lasting change.

I wish. Obviously, I believe we should never have gone into Iraq before we finished up in Afghanistan in the first place, but I can’t think of any way to “put Iraq on hold”. The status quo with respect to the insurgency is unacceptable, and the political process is moving at so fast, by the time we cleared up the al-Qaeda and Taliban operations in Afghanistan, Iraq will already be an Iranian province (I’m exaggerating, but not by much).

3. Seal the borders… we have the people to pull it off…

4. Re-initiate major combat actions in Iraq…

I agree. And I think we should do that right now.

NATO forces are playing a peacekeeper role in Afghanistan. I bet we could get Germany, Britain, France, or Spain (or Poland, or whomever the military thinks is appropriate) to participate in combat operations there while we deal with Iraq.

As long as our forces continue to act as an occupying force with no end strategy, they will be viewed as an enemy occupying force even by our allies in the region.

Not only that, but they’re going to piss off Americans back home because it doesn’t look like they have any idea what they’re doing.

Did you know, BTW, that electrical supplies have passed pre-war levels? Probably not.

jchfleetguy, an interesting GAO report just came out. I’m surprised you didn’t see the headlines, “Iraq Reconstruction Failing”.

Oil and electricity production have fallen below pre-war levels, and water, sanitation, and healthcare efforts are poorly managed and are having no significant effect on improving the lives of Iraqis.

Did you know that? Obviously not.

If we look at America’s self interest there are two things we can point to as positives.

I would hope victory is defined by how America’s interests are advanced. Let’s hear it, Craig.

1. We now now Iraq is not (nor was) a direct threat to the US. We know there are no WMD in Iraq…. I would also concede that we have gained this knowledge the hard way at far to great an expense.

Yikes! phx8 did a good job ridiculing this argument. I’d just add that President Bush insists he never said Iraq was an imminent threat. So your defense of the invasion as a fact-finding mission totally falls apart.

2. We can have a government in Iraq that is not a threat to it’s neighbors. (ie our oil supply)…

Well, that didn’t happen, did it. President Bush created a new ally for Iran. You may remember Iran as the country next door, developing nuclear weapons! The Iraqi and Iranian defense ministers recently negotiated a military alliance. One of the provisions is that Iraq will not allow the US to use the country as a base of attack.

Ideally, Iraq would have been a strong US ally with a strong military dedicated to keeping the peace in the Persian Gulf region - or at least letting the US use Iraqi bases as staging areas for stability operations. That’s not the way it turned out.

In fact, Iraq itself is unstable. Terrorists and insurgents are blowing up oil pipelines all the time. Iraqi oil production is still lower than pre-war levels. And the terrorists are going to use their newly gained oil pipe demolition skills elsewhere in the region. Bet on it.

No, we lost on the regional security war goal as well.

Darrius “A viable democracy can be built in Iraq but we have to pay the price.”

Why not let them determine their own fate? Why not let self-rule and self-determination rule the outcome?

We could have said that at the beginning. Now it is not an option because we have already meddled in their affairs. Because we have gotten ourselves involved, the responsibility is already upon us. We will either make things better or make things worse, there is no third alternative.

I honestly believe that democracy combined with a free market economy is a better way to run a country. It is simply a better mousetrap. I don’t believe that anyone, having become familiar with democracy and grown accustomed to voting, would willing go back to any system whereby he couldn’t vote. In a place like Iraq, the people have never grown accustomed to voting, so it would be easy for them to fall under the rule of another authoritian faction.

Your original question was, “Why not let self-rule and self-determination rule the outcome?” That’s what democracy is. Allowing the masses of the people to decide for themselves what will be legal, and what actions their nation will take.

Wherever you don’t have democracy and appropriate representative districts, you have the strong oppressing the weak. So if their own devices don’t lead them to democracy it is because some certain forces among them have convinced them that they are not able to rule themselves.

For the lack of a better way to say it, they don’t know better. No one would accept a restriction of their own rights if they new they had a choice. No one would allow anyone to take away their right to influence their own government if they realized they could stop them.

But they don’t know that they can stop them. They are victim to fear and ignorance. They are afraid that if they embrace individual rights and democracy that they will lose their religious identity. The silent majority don’t know how to take power from the minority that would force their will on them. Their own devices ‘don’t let self-rule and self-determination rule the outcome’.

If we were to force, yes force, democracy on a people that would be an act of benevolence not oppression, because you would be forcing that people to make their own decisions. The question is “Would we force democracy on them?” Would we be that noble, or would we be corrupted by the power that we have over this people and abuse them for our own devices?

AP,
More troops to secure the border? Where will we find another 100,000 troops? Supposedly Iraqi security forces act as border guards- but between corruption, graft, and ghost soldiers, a border which is already difficult to guard is, most likely, extremely porous. So, once again- where does the US find the troops?

If Iraq represented an important concern for national security, there would be a draft, and most people would support a draft to protect national security.

But Iraq does not represent a matter of national security. The Bush administration has no intention of asking citizens to make sacrifices. Most citizens look at the situation and ask themselves: ‘Why should I put my life on the line for Iraqi democracy when they won’t fight for it themselves?’

Iraq is a colossal misjudgment on the part of the Bush administration. And I believe those misjudgments are turning Iraq into more of a national security concern than most people realize.

Darrius,
Self-rule and self-determination do not necessarily mean democracy, or even a representative form of government. While you and I may fully agree on the advantages of democracy & a so-called free market, self-rule & self-determination means a people choose for themselves. They might, in our opinion, choose poorly, or they might choose wisely, but in any event they make the choice for themselves.

As long as that choice meets an acceptable level in terms of human rights (i.e., no genocide), we should be prepared to go with it. In the meantime, we can serve as a model, promote US causes with words and by example, and let the forces of western culture & globalization bring about the inevitable result.

AP,
Good post.
Of all the possible conclusions of this war none are good. At least none that are feasible. A total reassement of our goals is what is needed here. But, the only way we can move away from the thinking that got us here, is to change leadership. Which unfortunately doesn’t happen for another 3 and a half years. Yeah. So, what we can guess our leadership will do, is make a new goal list similar to the other one. Then, they can market that one to us as nearly the same thing. To keep from looking like they are total idiots, liars, and failures. We should see this happen over and over again for the remainder of the term, in probably 6 month-1 year increments. Until we’ve totally moved away from and denounced the original plan. Then we’ll be all set up for some more fear and slander in the next election, again. YEAH!

I know a fear that we have in America about the conditions in Iraq after the war is their human rights. We fear people will be killed and mistreated by their own people. At least this is another reason we are still there. Does anybody know how we look for possible terrorists or enemies amongst our “friendlies”? We wait until the night and bang on doors to wake everyone up and point our guns at the whole family. If anyone runs we kill them. We kill them right in front of their family. Why do you think the hatred of Americans is growing? We know who we’re looking for and where they are. Yet, our tactics are this forceful. Our leaders fill our troops with stories of how anyone can kill them and they are all enemies. So, our troops mistreat the innocent bystanders. Do you know how the British conduct raids on houses? They get one of the town’s elders and go to the houses during the day and have the elder translate their needs. Both ways are equally effective. Sure the U.K. was attacked last but, why are they there? Because, of America.

We have set up checkpoints in towns to make sure no terrorist infiltrate our cordon. If people do not stop they are shot well, at least the driver is shot. Think of it in your neighborhood, every single time you leave and come back your car gets searched and you get frisked because, it’s not safe. The people that are protecting you are foreigners that don’t know your culture. After being put through this day after day against your will wouldn’t you get sick of it? What’s the alternative? Freedom you say, free from what? Free from terror and an evil dictator? If we kill a man with his family for driving through a checkpoint, how can we call him a terrorist? Who created the terror? I’m not saying that we’re the terrorist or that they are all victims. But, we need to stop putting so much fear and anger in our people. Numerous times this scenario has happened in Iraq. Could you blame the children for hating America after you watched your father get killed by Americans? Sure, the father should have stopped. But, is death by an intruder in your neighborhood the correct punishment?

AP:

I would hope victory is defined by how America’s interests are advanced. Let’s hear it, Craig.

I would do that, but you are the one making the assertion that should be defended. Here is your assertion:

After more than two years of occupation which has left Iraqis free of Saddam - but arguably worse off than they were before the war - I think it’s safe to say: We lost Iraq

Here is what the lastest polling data shows from the brookings institute.

Question: Do you think Iraq is moving in the right directiion?

Sunni Iraqi’s Dec 04 15%
April 05 40%

All Iraq Dec 04 49%
Apr 05 67%

Question: How do you think your life will be a year from now? Number answering “better”

All Iraq Dec 04 59%
Apr 05 82%

With two thirds of Iraqi’s believing they are heading in the right direction, and the number of Sunni’s believing in the direction moving up from 15% to 40% this year, and 82% thinking their life will get better in the next year, why would should I believe Iraq is lost???

It “appears” we are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqi’s. It would seem to me that this is the opposite of what happened in Viet Nam. It would also seem like it is premature to conclude as you have that all is lost.

Why would all be lost when Iraqi’s are more optimistic than we are here in America?

Craig

Question: Do you think Iraq is moving in the right directiion?

Sunni Iraqi’s Dec 04 15%
April 05 40%

All Iraq Dec 04 49%
Apr 05 67%

Question: How do you think your life will be a year from now? Number answering “better”

All Iraq Dec 04 59%
Apr 05 82%

With two thirds of Iraqi’s believing they are heading in the right direction, and the number of Sunni’s believing in the direction moving up from 15% to 40% this year, and 82% thinking their life will get better in the next year, why would should I believe Iraq is lost???

It “appears” we are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqi’s. It would seem to me that this is the opposite of what happened in Viet Nam. It would also seem like it is premature to conclude as you have that all is lost.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 17, 2005 04:40 PM

Of course I haven’t seen this survey quoted above, but a question which immediately comes to my mind is why Iraqis may be more optimistic. Could it perhaps be that they perceive that the US has lost the war for control of Iraq and its future governance? That the likihood is that there will be a Constitution and Government which adheres more to the tenets of Islam than liberal democracy? That Iraq is now coming into the position where it can give the two fingers, or the middle one, whichever you prefer, to the US with impunity, knowing that it does not have the stomach after two years of occupation to engage even more deeply in Iraq? The forces of neo conservatism and the project for a new american century have been routed and are on the run - THANK GOD! These imperialists were a serious threat to world peace and I for one exult in the complete discrediting of their agenda, at least in the geo political sense. They still hold the US in thrall economically, where the rich are getting richer, and the little guy gets just enough of the crumbs to keep him distracted. And if that doesn’t work, whip up religious issues to keep middle Americas attention off their long term economic interests. Hell, in business this is called marketing - distracting peoples attention long enough to get your hands in their pockets!!! The US works as an immigrant country because you have fashioned symbols of nationhood into powerful totems to unify disparate peoples. That is the glue that binds people together; out of many, one. This is the positive side of the American myths. The negative side, is that such patriotic fervour can and does lead people to fail to recognise serious threats emanating from the extremists who wrap the flag around them. How do you think the Nazis prospered in 1930’s Germany. It was a famous Irishman who said that the price of liberty, is eternal vigilance. Regrettably, it seems that many Americans are asleep at the wheel.

More troops to secure the border? Where will we find another 100,000 troops?

phx8, we can get 100,000 troops immediately if we stop rotating ‘em home. In WWII, we didn’t rotate the troops home. They were there for the duration. But we don’t even need to do that. We’ve got enough troops to secure Iraq and still rotate ‘em.

And to sustain the effort, Democrats introduced legislation to authorize expansion of the military by 20,000 troops every year for the next five years.

Either we’re in this to win, or we’re not. You can argue that Iraq’s not worth it, but you can’t claim the United States doen’t have the manpower. That’s just not true.

Here is what the lastest polling data shows from the brookings institute.

Craig, again, that has nothing to do with the US acheiving its stated goals in Iraq. In any case, your poll doesn’t demonstrate that we’re “winning hearts and minds.” It just says that Iraqis think their lives will get better next year.

But to answer your question, the GAO just reported that oil and electricity are still below pre-war levels, and water, sanitation, and healthcare efforts are poorly managed and are having no significant effect on the lives of Iraqis.

These people freeze in the winter for lack of heating oil, and huddle in darkness drinking shit-water. In addition, they’re subjected to terrorist attacks where there were none before, and their lives are written off as collateral damage when they get caught in the crossfire.

Arguably, Iraqis are worse off now than before the war.

…Iraq is now coming into the position where it can give the two fingers, or the middle one, whichever you prefer, to the US with impunity…

Paul, I believe the equivalent gesture in Iraq is the thumbs up.

AP:

Again, all is not lost in Iraq as you contend. I could go through several more statistics of what Iraqi’s think but here is the gist. (I can supply specifics if requested).

1. Iraqi’s believe they are better off now than before with Sadaam.

2. Iraqi’s want democracy.

3. Iraqi’s want us to get out ASAP.

4. Iraqi’s have confidence in their elected government.

5. Iraqi’s believe their future will get gradually better.

When I read the statistics, they “feel” just about like I would.

Sadaam did have to go. The reason for 9/11 was US troops on the ground on Arab land. Saudi Arabia to be exact. Suicide bombins are not about religion or economics but about percieved occupation.

How do we get troops out of the middle east? If we withdraw from Saudi Arabia that would leave them open to a new attack from Iraq. Especially if you go back and look at the economics of the day with the coalition falling apart and Sadaam able to make billions through the food for oil program.

Now with Sadaam gone, hopelfully eventually we will be able to withdraw to the point were we only have our naval forces of the coast, and bases inland ready for expansion in case of another invasion such as 1990.

George Bush’s strategic interest is democracy in Iraq. America’s strategic interest is any government in Iraq that will not invade it’s neighbors. The left’s strategic interest is any outcome they can call a failure on the part of Bush and conservatives.

Our country will be fine which ever party is in power. What will stop the killing of US troops and US citizens is a stable government in Iraq that does not threaten it’s neighbors, and all us troops off of arab lands in the middle east. Especially Saudi Arabia.

Craig

Darrius, Self-rule and self-determination do not necessarily mean democracy, or even a representative form of government. While you and I may fully agree on the advantages of democracy & a so-called free market, self-rule & self-determination means a people choose for themselves. They might, in our opinion, choose poorly, or they might choose wisely, but in any event they make the choice for themselves.

As long as that choice meets an acceptable level in terms of human rights (i.e., no genocide), we should be prepared to go with it. In the meantime, we can serve as a model, promote US causes with words and by example, and let the forces of western culture & globalization bring about the inevitable result.

Posted by: phx8 at August 17, 2005 02:32 PM

And who is going to choose for them if they don’t have a democratic process? Who is this subset of people who know better than the majority? How will they gain better knowledge of what is best for each individual in the whole country than those individuals themselves have?

Even if they chose a honestly good, fair, and reasonable person to be their king, who is to say that man’s son would not be a fool.

The democratic mechanism produces superior results when it is put into effect properly. If they want some form of authoritarian process instead of a democratic process, it’s because they don’t know any better.

It’s like your 4 year-old daughter wanting to play with hot-combs or your 15 year-old son wanting to drop out of high school and get a job under the pretext of making their own choices. We would not let them do either because those choices are suicidal; they just don’t know any better.

We would not allow our 4 year-old daughter to play with a hot-comb. We would force our son to stay and finish school. One day he will realize that we were right, and that he was wrong; and he will be glad that we forced him to do what is best for him.

Paul from Euroland

Of course I haven’t seen this survey quoted above, but a question which immediately comes to my mind is why Iraqis may be more optimistic. Could it perhaps be that they perceive that the US has lost the war for control of Iraq and its future governance? That the likihood is that there will be a Constitution and Government which adheres more to the tenets of Islam than liberal democracy?

Here are some more statistics:

When Iraqi’s were asked “Was your life better before the war?”

Strongly agree 21.9%
Agree 15.4%
Disagree 20.6%
Strongly Dis 40.1%

Here is the link:

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

My take is that the people believe they have some hope of self determination. It is easy for you and I to picture an idealized form of democracy. I think the people are optimistic because they are not under Sadaam’s rule anymore.

That Iraq is now coming into the position where it can give the two fingers, or the middle one, whichever you prefer, to the US with impunity, knowing that it does not have the stomach after two years of occupation to engage even more deeply in Iraq?

As a Republican and an American I hope you are right. That means they can govern themselves and our miltary can come home. That means mission accomplished. If Iraq can give us one or two fingers after Sadaam then all is not lost in Iraq as AP is suggesting.

What would mean we have “Lost Iraq” would be if Iraq posed a threat to our strategic interest which is oil. Our only STRATEGIC interest is the oil fields. It is probably in Bush’s STRATEGIC interest for their to be democracy. I would hope for democracy for the Iraqi people, but if they cannot pull it off, then as a country we should be able to live with that.

This has been a 15 year problem. Hopefully we can solve it!!

Craig

Hi All:

Can Anyone remember why we invaded Iraq? Afghannistan? Just Curios.

Still wondering after all these years. Memory’s getting a little foggy. That’s all

As Always,
Wayne

What would mean we have “Lost Iraq” would be if Iraq posed a threat to our strategic interest which is oil. Our only STRATEGIC interest is the oil fields.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 18, 2005 07:24 PM

Curious that Craig, as the Bush Administration told the world that the invasion of Iraq was in response Iraq’s alleged links to 9/11, to WMD’s and to the world wide war on Terror. At this point the fact that Iraq was linked to none of those things is almost irrelevant. However, if the invasion was about securing America’s strategic interest in Iraqi oil, why would it have bothered? Saddam was no threat to any such strategic interest. America has long since proved that it could live and do business with Saddam.

The situation today is altogether less clear. In the southern Shia part of Iraq, there is a close affinity between Iraq and Iran, that benign defender of Americas strategic interests. As for securing the oil? Well, there seems to be a lot less of it flowing out of Iraq now than before the invasion. And no sign of much improvement for the forseeable future, with attacks on the oil infrastructure ongoing. Colin Powell put it well before the invasion; “If you break it, it’s yours” Why do you think Bush 41 stopped having completed his mission in ‘91? he took the sage advice of his entourage not to go there. “W” didn’t have the wisdom to do the same, and today, America and Iraq are both paying the price - but Iraq’s price is much, much higher. So much for protecting Americas strategic interest in Iraqi oil. In any case, is it not morally repugnant to justify an invasion of a soverign nation at a cost of reportedly up to hundreds of thousands of lives, in order to secure one’s own economic interests? An interest where America refuses to use an increasingly scarce commodity wisely, and would prefer to send its children to kill and be killed to ensure the continuation of it’s own profligacy? A far cry indeed from the lofty ambitions of American protestations of Democracy. In fact, if you are right, it is simply, as my fellow Irishman, the poet WB Yeats put it, “Fumbling in the greasy till, adding the halfpence to the pence…..”

What would mean we have “Lost Iraq” would be if Iraq posed a threat to our strategic interest which is oil.

Exactly, Craig. As I pointed out, the instability in Iraq is a threat to our strategic interests in the region. Iraq’s close ties with Iran is a threat to our strategic interests. And Iraq as a training ground for thousands of new terrorists intent on destabilizing Saudi Arabia and blowing up oil pipelines is a threat to our strategic interests.

Invading Iraq made the region less stable. The new government can not now - and will not for decades to come (if ever) - contribute to the stability of the region.

Using regional stability as a war goal, we lost.

—-
Can Anyone remember why we invaded Iraq? Afghannistan? Just Curios.

Still wondering after all these years. Memory’s getting a little foggy. That’s all
—-

‘Cause I said so!

Now please be quite and GO SHOPPING!

—-
Can Anyone remember why we invaded Iraq? Afghannistan? Just Curios.

Still wondering after all these years. Memory’s getting a little foggy. That’s all
—-

‘Cause I said so!

Now please be quiet and GO SHOPPING!

Curious that Craig, as the Bush Administration told the world that the invasion of Iraq was in response Iraq’s alleged links to 9/11, to WMD’s and to the world wide war on Terror.

And I agree with both with what you say, and at that time it was the right thing to do. The combination of WMD in Sadaam’s hands and OBL on the loose was intolerable. Unfortunately the information the world had on WMD was wrong. Clinton was wrong, Europe was wrong, and Bush was wrong. In addition the UN was so incompetant in it’s proceedings that I wouldn’t personally have trusted any outcome. I trust the UN the way you trust Bush.

However, if the invasion was about securing America’s strategic interest in Iraqi oil, why would it have bothered? Saddam was no threat to any such strategic interest. America has long since proved that it could live and do business with Saddam.

Now that our troops have assured us that there are no WMD and that there never were any, (of which I thank them!!) Now we can look at Iraq through different eyes. I disagree with your charactorization. American Armed forces had to enforce a no fly zone over iraq through most of the 90’s. Clinton had to attack Iraq in 1998. Iraq has been a problem since the end of the first gulf war. (maybe I misunderstood your point). All of the military activity since the end of the last gulf war sponsored by the UN was for some purpose. It was based on the belief that unless Sadaam was contained he would threaten the region. This containment policy was falling apart when Bush II took office. The coalition from the first gulf war (which was a great one) was already crumbling, as evidenced by the oil for food scandal.

Also it was the official policy of the United States to overthrow Sadaam. This was not Bush’s policy but Clinton’s. It was even passed by Congress in 1998!!

As you point out, this is about the future. I think that if Iraq becomes a country that does not have asperations beyond it’s boarders, America will be in a better position because the worlds oil reserves will not be threatened by Iraq anymore.

I disagree with AP that we (as a country) have lost Iraq. I do think it is possible and likely that President Bush will have lost his legacy in creating a free and independent democracy in Iraq. We will know after this weekend!!

Craig

Now that our troops have assured us that there are no WMD and that there never were any, (of which I thank them!!) Now we can look at Iraq through different eyes.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 19, 2005 01:04 PM

So what are you saying Craig, that ok, we goofed, now we can look at Iraq through different eyes? Well maybe you can, in your relative comfort of the US, but your countrymen and women and lets not forget the masses of Iraqi people, are paying for that goofiness with their lives and their physical integrity.

You speak of a combination of WMD’s in Saddam’s hands and OBL on the loose being intolerable. But Craig - (whispers) SADDAM DID NOT HAVE WMD’S!!!!!! And OBL is on the loose in Afghanistan-Pakistan - STILL!!!! But then, Bush doesn’t really think about him any more. He cleary didn’t think about concentrating his resources in the war on terror on those places and people who were the real enemy in the war on terror. And America today is paying the price. And that price is escalating. And the world gererally is becoming a less safe place. And Bush still can’t acknowledge any mistakes! You know, I always had the feeling that Bush was a ventriloquists dummy, with the controlling hand up his ass puling the cords to make him move and speak. Even notice how when he is asked an unscripted question unexpectedly, he fumbles for words, hell he fumbles for coherence. He seems to me to be a wind up doll whose is pointed in the right direction whenever required to speak, but don’t allow him off the leash, or the illusion will slip. Sorry for being so disrectful of your National Leader. It is not his office I disrespect, only the imcumbent. Once upon a time it seemed that Americans could make this distinction. Now it seems there are all too many who can’t.

Paul in Euroland:

So what are you saying Craig, that ok, we goofed, now we can look at Iraq through different eyes?

It depends on what you mean by “we”. We being George the first, Clinton, the democratic party, the republican Party, Presdident Bush, the CIA, and most foreign intelligence communities then yes we goofed. We had poor intelligence. That is a part of the new knowledge that we have learned. We should have known before that we have poor intelligence. For instance, we did not see the fall of the USSR, remember? Also we did not see 9/11 coming. We goofed because we trusted our intelligence, and in hindsite, that trust was misplaced.

Well maybe you can, in your relative comfort of the US, but your countrymen and women and lets not forget the masses of Iraqi people, are paying for that goofiness with their lives and their physical integrity.

My son is a Naval officer who has returned from his first tour of the middle east. Two US naval warships were fired on today.

As for what is going on in Iraq, I trust the Iraqi people’s thoughts more than the news media’s. Here is a repeat of something posted above.

When Iraqi’s were asked “Was your life better before the war?”

Strongly agree 21.9%
Agree 15.4%
Disagree 20.6%
Strongly Dis 40.1%

A majority of Iraqi’s believe their life is better now than before the war. Iraqi’s are overwelmingly positive about their future.

I have seen much bush hatred. Much of it coming from areas of the world/country that are declining in political power like Europe and the Democratic party. I expect emotions to run high in the future as well. Birthrates are much higher among conservatives here in the US. It looks like in the future there will be more George Bush’s then there will be Bill Clintons.

Craig

I guess Senator Chuck Hagle is a Bush-hater too,

“By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq … we’re not winning,”