Democrats & Liberals Archives

Iraq Expectations Lowered, Again

In 2003, President Bush vowed to help Iraqis erect a beacon of liberty and democratic ideals in a dark, despotic region. He solemnly pledged to the people of Iraq that their roads and water supply, police and justice system, oil facilities and hospitals, schools and energy infrastructure, and their economy and standard of living would be “the best in the region.”

A few weeks ago, in free and fair democratic elections, hardline anti-American Islamists consolidated and expanded their control of the Iraqi government, and the reconstruction ended in failure. President Bush's once grand vision is now reduced to the frail hope that radical Islamic militants will not gain control of Iraq's military and police.

The United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) -- a Shiite political union made up of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Islamic Da'wa, and the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's political wing -- gained the dominant position in parliament and claims the right to appoint defense and internal security ministers. Candidates are expected to come from the UIA's private militias (the Badr Corps, Shahid al-Sadr, and Mehdi Army), which are funded and armed by Iran.

In fact, SCIRI, the largest Shiite political party, maintains close ties to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and al-Sadr -- who made big gains in this election -- just vowed to defend Iran from attack. "The Mahdi Army is beyond the Iraqi army. It was established to defend Islam," al-Sadr proclaimed.

Iraq's constitution is a self-contradictory piece of crap that enshrines repressive, medieval Sharia Law and makes all legislation -- including its declaration of Iraqi rights and liberties -- subject to the veto of Islamic clerics. The foundation of Iraq's economy is not a capitalist, free-market system, but rather government control of its oil resources -- just like every other Middle Eastern petro-state. Iraq can by no means be considered a free-market liberal democracy.

The insurgents thwarted the reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure. The project failed and the funding was terminated. If Iraq's infrastructure ever becomes "the best in the region," it'll be decades in the future.

And now, Iraq's security forces will likely be controlled by pro-Iranian militia leaders. It was bad enough when Iraq's defense ministry was merely "corrupt and incompetent," as Gen. Barry McCaffrey described it, but now the US-trained Iraqi military will probably end up in the hands of anti-American Islamists.

It's fashionable on the right and in the media to attribute declining American support for the Iraq war to mounting casualties. I disagree. I believe support is eroding because Americans are coming to realize we've been led to military and political defeat in Iraq.

Posted by American Pundit at January 23, 2006 12:23 PM
Comments
Comment #115872

AP

Before I jump all over this piece one question:Exactly who and when was our military “defeated” in Iraq?

Waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy out of line.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 23, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #115876

IRAQ - now with 2% more suck.


(I think defeat can be defined as failure to meet or exceed original goals and expectations. If all we did was rip down one bad government to build up a better, stronger bad government… how’s that not defeat. The defeat is not at the hands of our military, it’s at the hands our of leaders who could not produce a victory.)

Posted by: tony at January 23, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #115882

I read those comments and I aggree that the kind of government envisaged by the coalition before has dissappeared and this is defeat in measurable terms.
I also fear that Ben Ladin is playing reverse phsychology with the president having realised that the only place they can easily kill US troops will be in iraq and afganistan therefore he does not want the US to leave, but rather remain and get killed.
I think that is how he plans to keep the United States engaged.
The troops will never go home because the iraqi troops will never do for them what they want done and the way they want it done.
In any case 2200 is a small number of people but not the bushes or otherwise who would do anything to stay out of war themselves but quick to send others.

Posted by: leno at January 23, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #115899

AP, tony
Are you all saying that we have already been defeated and any hope of victory is gone forever?

Posted by: kctim at January 23, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #115902

The continued disagreement between Cons and Libs on Iraq goes to the definition of victory. I think most people posting on this blog are politically sophisticated enough to distinguish between short-term success and long-term success. I also know that many of us are old enough to remember Vietnam, the Shah’s Iran, and Serbia.

I think everyone (including myself) who believes we have lost or are losing in Iraq blames the failure of the war to produce a country friendly to American interests. This is a reasonable measure, especially if you look at our history in this century.

WWII’s success was not just the defeat of the original Axis of Evil, but the development of strong, democratic states. Since then, we have not had any comparable results. Replacing one dictator with a council of dictators is not victory by American standards.

I have one question for all the Republicans who think this is all just political posturing: Where are the Democratic complaints about Afghanistan? If none of the complaints are substantive, why aren’t Democrats screaming about our war in Afghanistan as well? You will have trouble finding any Democratic complaints on this blog about our mission in Afghanistan.

The answer is that most everyone agreed with our invasion of Afghanistan, but the Iraq War was questioned by millions from the start. What is called political posturing is the sincere belief that the Bush Adminstration was wrong to invade Iraq and the desire to hold our leaders accountable for their efforts to distort/reshape American opinion to gain favor for the war.

Posted by: CPAdams at January 23, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #115905

CP

THe Dems would complain about Afghanistan if they didn’t want to concentrate on Iraq. It is now dogma that they all supported Afghanistan back in the day (only the real wackos at moveon.org etc opposed), and mostly they are telling the truth. They would also be telling the truth, however, if they said that they all supported Iraq back in the day.

Posted by: Jack at January 23, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #115906

If the people Iraq,or Afganistan choose a Religion led government then they should have it.The whole point is to let them choose,that is why we are there,that is democracy.If they become anti-American,it’s their choice not Saddam’s or some other dictator.If they become a threat to us ,then we will defend ourselves.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at January 23, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #115913

Jack,

the Democrats were split on Iraq. Republicans have criticized these same Democrats who were opposed to the Iraqi invasion for not being supportive of the war and the others for not being supportive enough. The House and Senate votes are both clear that almost half of the Democratic members were against the Iraq resolution.

My point was that there is evidence for the sincerity of many Democrats in their questioning of the Bush Administration’s Iraqi policy. The belief that we are losing in Iraq is not political posturing, it’s an observation, and a reasonable one to many, including military people who have been on the ground in Iraq.

Posted by: CPAdams at January 23, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #115915

RDAVID,

I guess there is something democratic about people choosing to not have a democracy, but once they have made that decision you can’t go on calling the nation a democracy. For instance, if all the people voted to give up all their rights, including future voting priveledges, and voted for Sadaam to rule the country as a dictator I wouldn’t continue to call Iraq a democracy, though I wouldn’t put anything past the bought and paid for right-wing media.

A lot of people are questioning how the situation is better now than it was under Sadaam: the people are worse off, the country won’t be any more of a democracy after we leave, the place has become a breeding ground for terrorists, and the new government is already openly hostile to us. At least under Sadaam and the trade embargos Iraq was a weak nation on its way to collapsing.

Maybe things will turn around, what do I know? But it sure doesn’t look that way to me. This was the war that supposed to pay for itself, that would require a small number of troops, that would make us more secure, that would be over by 2003, etc. Is it un-American to point out that none of the things we were told about this war ended up happening?

Great post American Pundit.

Posted by: Max at January 23, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #115916

“Are you all saying that we have already been defeated and any hope of victory is gone forever?”

ummm, no - but until we get new leadership, I don’t think you can count on any major successes.

Posted by: tony at January 23, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #115918

Fair enough tony, thanks.

Posted by: kctim at January 23, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #115968

kctim -

You’re not agreeing with me are you?

Posted by: tony at January 23, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #116010

A true democracy is when everything is voted on so we elect people to make decisions based on a guideline called a constitution which the people voted on and as long as the elected follow it the people are represented.That is a Republic,but,it is still democratic as long as it is the will of the MAJORITY.If the elected do not follow the constitution they should be replaced in the next election.Their constitution may not be like ours but then ours is not like our 1st,and ours has been amended.They can do the same and probably will.If the government evolves into something that does not like us,then we will deal with that.I do not believe they hate us but I do believe they want to be sovereign and I also believe that will benefit them and us.I also do not believe any nation will be exactly what we want nor should they,unless they choose to be.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at January 23, 2006 10:17 PM
Comment #116030

RDAVID,

We hold certain truths to be self evident and inalienable. When we make amendments to our constitution it is in relation to our evolving understanding of those truths. That’s the difference.

Posted by: Max at January 23, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #116050

AP,
Good article. When I first saw the item you mentioned about the end of funding for Iraq, I thought that spelled the end. We’re done. Stick a fork in it. The funds already allocated will be spent, but no more. The Neocon dreams of a free market in Iraq, owned and operated by friendly multinationals, died a quiet death.

Lowered expectations for Iraq. I’ll say.

In terms of domestic politics, we’ll need to come to terms. Not even the Neocons believe in “victory” anymore. Iraq pumps less oil now, in 2006, than it did before the invasion. There are some bright spots, but we can’t advertise them; the insurgents will destroy anything we brag about.

But not believing in “victory” doesn’t matter. The important thing for the Neocons is to spin away the responsibility. First choice would be to pretend it all worked out great, so that evading responsibility won’t be necessary in the first place. Most Bush supporters would never know any different; many still think Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11, there really were WMD, and so on. Keeping those people fooled is easy as pie.

If the pretense of “victory” becomes impossible to maintain, what then? We’ve already seen some preliminary spin.

The most obvious is to blame liberals. It’s silly, but count on this one.

More interesting are matters that a few mentioned earlier in the thread. Was this a military victory, but a political defeat? Since Saddam Hussein and the Baathists are gone, isn’t that “victory”? If more people die from a civil war than ever could have been killed by Saddam, how do we evaluate that?

A theocratic democracy allied with Iran is being established in Iraq, and they’ve already made hostile remarks about Israel. A training ground for terrorists rivaling the Taliban’s Afghanistan. How to spin this into a “victory”?

Most people have never heard of 4th Generation Warfare. They think the military conquest along 3rd Generation guidelines constituted a military victory. But in fact, it did not. The conquest was only the first phase. The occupation phase was part of the same war, from the insurgent’s perspective. In their arrogance, the Neocons never understood this. But you can bet they’re already dissecting this at the military War Colleges.

Iraq was unquestionably a military defeat for the US.

It was also an economic defeat of the first magnitude.

All that’s left is to pin the blame before the midterm elections.

One last comment. The domestic economy will be so bad by November that Iraq will be as forgotten as Afghanistan.

Posted by: phx8 at January 24, 2006 1:05 AM
Comment #116091

AP,

Right now I’m at the point where I just don’t know. Sooner or later we’ll have to pull out of Iraq. Or we could truly become an occupying force which would take how many hundreds of thousands of troops we don’t have? (We can’t control our own borders) Honestly that would require a draft. In all fairness we already should have reinstated the draft. How many times can you send the same guys & gals into harms way? Of course they all volunteered but did they volunteer for a lifetime deployment?

History would tell us that we can’t get-r-dun even in 50 or 100 years (if you’re not much on reading, rent the movie ‘Lawrence of Arabia’), of course this administration seems to shun such things as history and science. Already, one faction in Iraq has said they’d fight us if we went up against Iran.

Should we perhaps have listened to Hans Blix when he nearly pleaded for a little more time? What would be so wrong with telling the new Iraqi government that we’re pulling out as far as Kuwait, the Kurdish north, etc? I’ll grant you then Iran might get the idea of starting up it’s Nuclear projects again. Maybe Syria would even fall out of love with us.

Well, and if we did have to resort to air attacks we might kill some innocents and we’ve tried like hell to avoid that. Of course the survivors forgive us and only wish us victory in the war against radical Islam. If we stay long enough they’ll all learn to love us. After all we’re “reforming” the future of the nation of Islam. Every day we see it losing strength.

And I still have that beachfront property for sale here around Wichita, Kansas.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at January 24, 2006 4:42 AM
Comment #116153

tony
Yes, I do agree with you to a point. I am sure the type of “new leadership” is where we will differ.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2006 9:33 AM
Comment #116202
Exactly who and when was our military “defeated” in Iraq?

If the militariy’s job was to create and maintain order, they failed. In addition to the Bush administration’s lack of will to commit the necessary military and political resurces to win in Iraq, I blame the Pentagon for sticking with the same warfighting strategies that lost us Vietnam.

In the words of one Vietnam-era senior officer, “I’ll be damned if I permit the United States Army, its institutions, its doctrine, and its traditions to be destroyed just to win this lousy war.”

Before I jump all over this piece…

Fire away, SE.

THe Dems would complain about Afghanistan if they didn’t want to concentrate on Iraq.

Bullshit.

Are you all saying that we have already been defeated and any hope of victory is gone forever?

If by “victory” you mean establish a free-market liberal democracy in Iraq, then yes.

Iraq has a constitution and a freely elected government. Iraq is what it is: a theocratic petro-state. The United States no longer has the leverage to change that.

If, like Vietnam, Iraq starts to liberalize a few decades from now, it will not be because of anything the US did there after December, 2003.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 24, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #116217
The occupation phase was part of the same war, from the insurgent’s perspective. In their arrogance, the Neocons never understood this. But you can bet they’re already dissecting this at the military War Colleges.

Excellent post, phx8. IIRC, you’ve read Col. Hammes’ “The Sling and the Stone”. I just finished Col. Nagl’s “Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife”, which comes to the same conclusion: The Pentagon must focus more on the type of wars we’re fighting right now, rather than some hypothetical and unlikely war with China or a resurgent evil Russian empire.

KansasDem, all good points.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 24, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #116279

Thanks AP.
As I am still reading and trying to better understand the Iraq govt and its progression, I really appreciate you and tony giving me your input on the matter.
I know nothing about it and input from both sides gives me good starting points in looking for the good and bad of it all.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #116300

AP
You didn’t tell me when they got defeated…you jumped to “creating and maimntain order”…to you that is a defeat…to me it isn’t

A defeat is when an invasion is repulsed and the invaders all killed or when a country is conquered and occupied.

Ask Saddam if he won or lost,so I don’t buy your theory.

Now..regarding maintaining order….that’s a different story….there,the answer is that so far progress has been made,but not enough to suit you.

Elections (three of them) and a constitution(I don’t give a shit what it says..it’s THEIR constitution…our originial constitution gave fractionial representation to slaves…under your theory,instead of ours being a start,it was a piece of crap….the important thing is that it is something.

I really object to you saying we lost the war…that is pure foolishness.

I expect better from you.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 24, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #116352

Sicilianeagle,

You’re saying the game is not over. You’re right. It’s not. But any fool can see where the game is going. Repeating ad nauseum that Iraqis have a constitution and voted does not change the fact that many of our initial objectives for this war have not been met and don’t look like they are going to be.

I understand you think that lefties will criticize Bush about anything he does, but from our side it looks like we’re being handed a steaming pile and being asked to eat it up. No thanks.

Posted by: Max at January 24, 2006 4:44 PM
Comment #116378

Sicilian,
“Ask Saddam if he won or lost,so I don’t buy your theory.”

It’s true, Saddam Hussein lost, without question. Unfortunately, that does not make us the winner. The winner was Arab fundamentalism, especially the Shia fundamentalists.

In one sense, it’s difficult to assess whether the US won or lost, because on a national scale, our stakes were minimal. Iraq never represented a matter of national survival or even security.

We won in the sense that Saddam Hussein & his sons are gone, and in the sense that Iraqis were given the opportunity to exercise self-determination.

We lost in terms of prestige & honor, and we lost in terms of thousands of lives wasted, more wounded, minds damaged, families broken, with very little to show for it- except, of course, successful political campaigns by George Bush. But that was the whole, point, wasn’t it? Mission accomplished!!! We lost in terms of the hundreds of billions of dollars which disappeared down a rat hole. We lost in terms of accomplishing any stated objectives affecting this country.

Imagine what could have been done with that money! Imagine what those soldiers could have done with their lives!

Posted by: phx8 at January 24, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #116408

Good piece, AP.
Here are a couple of good articles that relate to this topic that I’d like to share with you:

Let History Judge, by Scott Ritter

Civil War-Elect, by Robert Dreyfuss

phx8 — spot-on replies (IMO), and very well said!

Posted by: Adrienne at January 24, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #116423

Jack,
“THe Dems would complain about Afghanistan if they didn’t want to concentrate on Iraq.”

You are so out of line with that! One of the reasons I took time off from posting here for a bit was because I was getting physically sick from having everything distorted by lies and misrepresentations. I can only take it so long when there are people totally incapable of being honest with themselves or others.

I have been posting this argument for quite awhile… Your answer has to be the absolute worst anyone could ever come up with.

The Democrats did not disagree with the war against Afganistan and your attempt to distort the record on this is so typical of the republican attempt to do or say anything if they believe they can get someone to believe it!

People wonder why the Republican Party is always being compared to the Nazis? Because the tactics are the same. Contempt for the oppostition, desire for a single party system and creating propoganda where you repeat lies enough until they are believed.

People questioned why I was upset with the previous Secs of State meeting with the President? I was being accused (rightly) of his being damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. The reason I was so upset was because of his ability (and many others apparently) of using any agreement or cooperation with this administration or the republican party as an opportunity to back stab for political gain.

I am so sick of the lies. So, sir… I would appreciate any evidence that you might have pertaining to the statement that you made. ANY EVIDENCE

If not, then I believe that I will have to take your opinion for exactly what it is worth.

Someone may decide to now limit my posting priveleges as was done in the Conservative side of this site. (I believe that was a Jack) I do not believe I have violated the terms of agreement, but if that is the decision I will abide by it.

As with morals, ethics and all the rest of that garbage the Republicans tried to pass themselves off as… they also try to pretend that they are the only party that is against terrorists. What a crock!

Maybe the problem with the republicans is “enemy recognition”? The inability to distinguish between a political opponent and a person stapping a bomb around themselves. There is a difference.

I just wish that the party of American values, morality and integrety was half as of what they believe themselves to be. Sadly, that is not the case. Evidence their selling their votes to the highest bidder, their closed dealings on American policy and now it would appear… to disparage Democrats by saying that they only supported Afganistan because they could get away with attacking Bush on Iraq.

Those Democrats that did support the President with Iraq are now being attacked because they supported the President? I get so dizzy following this type of logic.

They agreed to the war based on the intelligence given to them by the President. This is the President that never changes his mind once it is made (because that would be weak and wishy-washy, so he stays firmly to his guns in the face of contrary evidence). This is the President of the Party that sees people wiht a different viewpoint as the enemy? This is the President, his administration and the Party that believes the only way to get things done it by excluding the other party and making decions behind closed doors?

Ask yourself, why in God’s name would ANYONE want to deal with a party that is so corrupt?

I have looked into the heart of the Republican party and there is a cancer… a soul sickness… one that is based on self-centered-righteousness, apathy and contempt for others. It caters to the lowest common denominators… greed, envy, hatred of anyone different.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 24, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #116644
You didn’t tell me when they got defeated…you jumped to “creating and maimntain order”…to you that is a defeat…to me it isn’t

A defeat is when an invasion is repulsed and the invaders all killed or when a country is conquered and occupied.

SE, your definition only makes sense if the only goal was to remove Saddam Hussein. If that was the case, we should have left in Dec. 2003. But that’s not the goal President Bush set for our military.

The goal was to provide security so we could help Iraqis create a free-market liberal democracy with an infrastructure that would be “the best in the region”.

That didn’t happen. Despite having up to 170,000 troops in Iraq, the insurgency halted the reconstruction far short of the President’s goal. It’s over. We lost that one.

The military failed to disarm the militias. The continued existence — and political ascendency, even — of al-Sadr and his Islamist thugs is a particularly huge blow to our military credibility. We failed to destroy him and his organization despite months of all-out fighting in the spring and summer of 2004. That criminal and murderer, al-Sadr, is now one of Iraq’s ruling elite thanks to his militia.

The other Islamists in the Supreme Council for the Revolution in Iraq and Islamic Da’wa also rode to victory on the backs of their illegal Iranian-backed militias. The US military tried and failed to disarm them.

We won the battle of Baghdad in 2003. But after three years of counterinsurgency operations, insurgent attacks are still increasing at an alarming rate,

The number of attacks against coalition troops, Iraqi security forces and civilians increased 29% last year…
  • The number of car bombs more than doubled to 873 last year from 420 the year before.
  • The number of suicide car bombs went to 411 from 133.
  • Sixty-seven attackers wore suicide vests last year, up from seven in 2004.
  • Roadside bombs increased to 10,953 in 2005 from 5,607 the year before.

And as the insurgency gains strength, our military is at the point where it can no longer sustain operations in Iraq. According to a new Pentagon report,

…the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency.

Explain to me how that’s a US military victory, SE.

And that’s just the military side of failure in Iraq, the political side is even worse. It didn’t have to be this way, and I’m bitterly disappointed that President Bush led us to this failure.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 25, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #116723

AP,
I have to agree with you. Anyone that believes that the entire purpose of war is to beat up the other guy… should not be in a position of control over a military.

That is tactical thinking which belongs down with the military officers. The strategic, political objectives in which the war is waged to achieve is the difference between winning and losing a war.

Look at Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of Afganistan… militarily they were decisive on each set piece battle… but it cannot be said that they “Won the war.”

My daughter got me a book for Christmas called The Art of War because she knew my interest in military history. She was told that this was one of the biggest sellers at the store she bought the book from. This book, as well as Benard Montegomery’s History of Warefare talk about the exceptional minds of true strategic verus tactical leaders.

Our military has the capability to defeat any other military in the world. That is really no great accomplishment considering their motivation, training and equipment. Their winning is simply a matter or how quickly and at what cost.

What was completely lost to this administration was that the true objective of going to war is to instill some change in the enemy that caused the reason to go to war.

This should have been the primary focus with everything leading towards that goal. If it was, then there would have been more consideration of manpower with the goal towards maintaining secuirity but the focus was on Rumsfeld’s desire to show how smaller forces could effectively win battles (not wars). This is one reason he should have been fired.

Anyone who believes that the winning of war is the only the defeat of the opponents on the field of battle… they should not be considering themselves the party supporting the military.

Why? Because then the matter of winning is killing more of them then they kill of ours. That is a waste of human life… ours and theirs. War should have an aim… or else it is simply state sanctioned murder.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 25, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #116737

AP
I swear it must be that water in Singapore you’re drinking.

We efficerated(God,I love that word) the Baathist and Saddam.His two sons are pushing up daisies and people are going to elections,talking constitution,talking about a unity government and generally creating a new country.

Of course people are still getting killed.

They will for a long long time.

Maybe there will even be a civil war.

So what…we had one 65 years after our constitution was ratified over the state’s rights issue.

New born democracies take a couple of generations to shake out PLUS these people have to be taught how to be free.

Give me a break..don’t be so doom and gloomish….

A lot has happened these last three years…and most of it is good.

Say what you want my friend but despite every politicial roadblock that the democratis have thrown the last couple of

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 25, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #116740

AP


whoops sorry about that….

the last part of the last sentence should read ” years,progress is being made every day”

By the way,I believe that tacticially standing up an army and politicial system,no matter how long it takes is the only appropriate strategy..something which the president has done.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at January 25, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #116745

Darren, very well said.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 25, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #116766

Saddam Hussein was left in power because it was in the interests of the US. Every president prior to Bush made this calculation, including Reagan in 1982, when Iraq was removed from the list of terrorist states. Given a choice between Saddam Hussein brutally oppressing the Shias or Kurds, or empowering those minorities, every president prior to Bush chose Saddam Hussein.

Empowering the Shias and Kurds not only offers the prospect of a king-hell civil war; it destabilizes the region by encouraging Kurdish rebellions in Turkey, Syria, and Iran; and it creates a fundamentalist Shia regime allied with Iran, and hostile to Israel.

Posted by: phx8 at January 25, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #116783
I swear it must be that water in Singapore you’re drinking.

LOL! The water here exceeds WHO standards — unlike many places in the US. :)

We efficerated(God,I love that word) the Baathist

If you mean “eviscerated”, I like it too. You’re obviously unaware that the insurgency is primarily Baathist.

SE, we won the battle of Baghdad. That was a good stand-up fight — the only kind our military is trained to win — but it was only the first battle. We’re fighting an insurgency now, and unless something changes very soon, we’re losing.

In order for us to win, the US military must completely defeat the insurgency like the British did in Malaya. If the insurgency stays active until we leave, they win.

And we are drawing down significantly this year. That’s just a fact. And it’s going to play well in the jihadist press because it comes on the heels of an increase in insurgent activity.

The US withdrawal will be seen as an Islamist victory — just like Reagan’s withdrawal from Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing — and you’ll still be arguing that we won. Just like Jack and JBOD still believe we won the Vietnam war.

Of course people are still getting killed.

They will for a long long time.

Maybe there will even be a civil war.

So what…

SE, if you really feel that way, then you should be especially pissed off at President Bush for not just leaving after we got Saddam.

You’re saying that all the money spent and lives lost and shattered since then were never meant to make any difference in Iraq. If they weren’t lost to stop the violence and prevent civil war and a failed state, then why do you think we’re still there?

Posted by: American Pundit at January 25, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #116920

AP

Give me some of that water please.

I think the election in Palestine(as I am writing this Hamas has won) changes the whole curve.

Their election will harden the Iranian position and hence the Iraq insurnency,strengthing my arguement that Iraq was and is a battlefield on the war on terror.

I will give you credit for coining the term the Battle of Baghdad though.Two points on that,although I can’t recall a battle to be honest.

In December I told you 2006 would be interesting geo-politcially and I didn’t see one word about a Hamas victory here or anyplace else on its ramifications.

Yikes.

Now what do the Isrealis do?

Evicerate someone?(God,I love that word..even when I misspell it….)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 26, 2006 7:49 AM
Comment #117079

I love how some people are so free with the blood of others. Oh sure… there will be a civil war probably. Hahahaha. It is just natural… a growing pain. Collateral damage. Nothing to get too worked up about. A necessary evil.

Now, combine that attitude towards life, and a member of the party of the President that wants a war and you will see why there wasn’t much consideration of the long term, strategic goals.

My God people. Those necessary, unavoidable lives that will be so lightly tossed aside in a war are real people! Without that basic understanding should a person be allowed to determine that war is the best option? It is, after all, just some little brown people with a nasty religion in a region of the world that no one cares about except it has oil.

These people were not even allowed to be photographed by western reporters without a visit to the torture chambers. They had as much to do with 9-11 as the man on the moon. But, hey, in war there are casualities. Oh well.

This is the party of the “True Christians”? I am not an expert in Biblical literature… but show me it says anything about a few necessary deaths to create a nation? That a few deaths are okay? I want it from the New Testament… not the old because Christ came to create a new coveneant with his death.. so please, let’s keep it to His teachings. Also, not interpretation done through history to justify actions of a Pope or ruler.

It really sickens me that the thought of a civil war is so lightly treated.

Why is it that only the people that face war, are in a war or have been in a war truely appreciate the terror and price of war?

I am not talking about the debate of whether or not military experience is necessary for a war time President. Please can we avoid that debate?

What I am talking about is the old saying… that the military are the last that want to go to war. Because it is their lives and they know the true nature of war.

It is the people that carelessly toss out cliches and meaningless claptrap about the bloody cost of war and saddens me and sickens me.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 26, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #117429

Daren

Nice try putting words in my mouth.

Don’t.

Nowhere did I say civil war ha,ha,ha.

That moronic sentence is yours,not mine and the dumb conslusion is also yours.

Since you want to trade transcripts with such a dolt as me,how about telling us about the pillars of Islam without resorting to a google search?

That should be really really easy for such a bright guy as yourself.Should take no more that 2 minutes.

I will give you one hint:Mull over alms giving a bit.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 27, 2006 5:28 AM
Post a comment