August 02, 2005
Wrong on Both Sides
As debate on an ‘exit strategy’ for Iraq continues on (and on and on) the one thing that strikes me is how both political parties are completely missing the point. The end result is that we end up with the two large parties slugging it out for political gain, leaving the real needs for Iraq, the US and the Middle East twisting in the wind.
As most of you already know, I was a supporter of the war in Iraq. I had long called for the removal of Saddam Hussein as the leader of the country for a large number of reasons, many of them listed here.
To sum them up, he was a threat to his people, his region and to the western world, including the US. There has been attempts to paint his running of Iraq as being 'neutered and contained' but reality shows that this was not the case.
However, leaving that aside, what has happened since his removal has been a complete failure. The Bush administration wrongly felt that the populace would welcome Americans with open arms. This was a strange assumption considering this his own father is the one who left them out to die after they attempted to overthrow Hussein previously. Trusting us would be a hard and difficult process. This would be harder considering the huge media coverage of people like Ted Kennedy and Michael Moore who were giving them every reason not to trust us as well, all for the desire to either political damage President Bush in the run up to the 2004 elections or potentially get him removed from office earlier, a long stated goal of the far left for several years before.
Since that time much talk of an 'exit strategy' has been batted around, as if one was a requirement for doing what needed to be done. It would have been nice to have one, but we didn't have one in WWII and that turned out ok in the long run. The aftermath of war is almost impossible to predict.
On one side, we have a group of people saying that a hard date needs to be made. After this date we would bring all of our troops home. Well, that's just an example of why people like this shouldn't be running a military, this just opens up the troops to be target practice. You've just provided your enemies with a date they need to hold out until and by what date they need to make the most impact to achieve their goals.
On the other side, we have a group of people saying that no date at all can be set, that we'll return the troops home 'when it's time' without defining at all what this time is. All this does is tell the citizens of the country you are in that you may be there forever, as an occupying force, and they had better get use to it.
You can see the damage that both sides have caused. In come the foreign fighters on one hand, trying to do as much damage as possible in the hopes that a date will be set. On the other hand are the local citizens who start to feel as if they have just been saved from one oppressive dictator just to be placed under the yoke of another. They reluctantly join forces with the foreign fighters in order to try and repel those occupiers from their homes.
The proper way of dealing with this is to make a clear statement of the conditions that need to be met before we withdraw. By doing this, you are telling the local citizens that you have no intention of staying forever and as they work with you in the process and stop the violence, the sooner you will be leaving the country in their hands. You have to set several of these goals out and meet each one, pulling back as you meet them in order to regain the trust of the community, the trust we destroyed a decade previous.
Unfortunately, that would require people to do what is best for their country, not their party, which as we can see with how the aftermath of war has shown us is a hard thing to do. In the meantime, we continue to appear as if we have no clue what we are doing and preventing any confidence in our ability to act in a reasonable manner from being fostered. All while a feeding frenzy of the 'I told you so's continues in the national and international media for the entire world to see.
Posted by Rhinehold at August 2, 2005 11:20 AMIt would have been nice to have one, but we didn’t have one in WWII and that turned out ok in the long run.
Rhinehold, we spent three years planning the occupation of Germany and Japan.
On one side, we have a group of people saying that a hard date needs to be made.
I’m curious who you’re talking about here. Certainly not Congressional Democrats. Senator Reid says setting a deadline would be stupid,
Reid, D-Nevada, also said it would be a mistake to set a deadline for the withdrawal of American forces. “That’s not a wise decision because it only empowers those who don’t want us there,” he said in a joint appearance with House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.
You say,
The proper way of dealing with this is to make a clear statement of the conditions that need to be met before we withdraw.
You’re absolutely right. That’s what the British did when they beat the communist insurgency in Malaya. I suggested it before, but Jack told me it would never work because Iraq is different.
In fact, Reid and Pelosi made the same point you do, Rhinehold.
“The president needs to spell out a real and understandable plan for the unfinished work ahead” in Iraq, Reid said. “Most of all, we need an exit strategy so that we know what victory is and how we can get there; so that we know what we need to do and so that we know when the job is done.”
Assuming you’re right - and I think you are - once again, Democrats were right; Republicans were wrong. But it’s good to see you guys finally coming around.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 2, 2005 12:38 PMYes. Honesty is the best policy.
Rhinehold wrote:
The proper way of dealing with this is to make a clear statement of the conditions that need to be met before we withdraw.
Using this matter as a political football is shameful, but that doesn’t stop some from doing it. Posted by: d.a.n at August 2, 2005 12:46 PM
Rhinehold, I agree, the US absence of policy in Iraq is making everything about that campaign worse.
Now to strongly disagree with you, my above statement is PRECISELY why we should not have invaded in the first place. A great many of us knew before the invasion that it was going to be a quagmire with no heroic and victorious exit. We said so, loudly. Now we are vindicated. But folks such as yourself, still don’t see it, or get it.
Removal of Hussein was going to unleash factional conflicts which were inevitably going to put our troops smack dab in the middle of a civil conflict as well as make our troops magnets for foreign terrorists. Bush did not have a plan to deal with this, for if he had, he would have laid it out to Congress if not the public at large. He never had a plan to deal with what was obvious to those of us who stayed sober through history classes, and he has proven he never had a plan because none has ever been implemented.
So while I agree with you about the quagmire we find ourselves in, I have to say, there were many intelligent and sage voices within the intelligence community and the public media who warned you supporters of the invasion, and now it is just and fair to say, “We told you so”.
From this point forward we have two choices. We leave when Iraq tells us to, or we leave in shame. Let us pray the Iraqis ask us to leave in a reasonably short period of time.
But, either way, we do not leave on our own desired terms and that is the lesson of Viet Nam which those on the right continue to assert has no relevance to our effort in Iraq. Supporters of this war are the epitome of the that old addage, those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it. Enter GW Bush and his supporters.
AP said:
In fact, Reid and Pelosi made the same point you do, Rhinehold.
“The president needs to spell out a real and understandable plan for the unfinished work ahead” in Iraq, Reid said. “Most of all, we need an exit strategy so that we know what victory is and how we can get there; so that we know what we need to do and so that we know when the job is done.”
Give me a break, AP. The Democrats should have insisted upon an intelligible and viable exit plan BEFORE giving Bush the votes in Congress to make war in Iraq. The gutless Democratic whimps in Congress at that time were far more concerned about lost votes from appearing unpatriotic than they were about what was good for America with regard to Iraq.
Democrats demanding an honorable exit plan from the President now is a red herring. It is so, precisely because Democrats know there is no honorable exit now from Iraq. We either leave on Iraqi terms when they demand we leave, or we leave because the American public will not tolerate the waste of taxes and American soldiers on a lost cause. Democrats are still playing politics. They want an exit without being blamed for the conditions under which it occurs. Sorry, they are as responsible as the Republicans. They had the opportunity to demand the President present such a plan before getting consent from Congress, and they gutlessly blew it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 2, 2005 12:57 PMAh, Reid and Pelosi. But what about the links of Kennedy, Boxer, Feingold and Woolsey? Are they just not ‘real’ democrats? (from The Progressive Magazine)
But some Democrats have stepped up, like Lynn Woolsey, Democrat of California, who introduced a withdrawal bill in May. Senators Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold have also introduced a bill calling for withdrawal.Posted by: Rhinehold at August 2, 2005 01:49 PMRepresentative Maxine Waters has created what she calls the “Out-of-Iraq Congressional Caucus.” It includes at least forty-one members, and its “sole purpose is to be the main agitators in the movement to bring our troops home,” she said.
Representative Dennis Kucinich has also been outspoken in advocating withdrawal. “The U.S. occupation of Iraq is counterproductive, and the insurgency will continue as long as the Iraqi people believe decisions about their future are made in Washington and not Baghdad,” Kucinich said. “We must begin the process of bringing our troops home.”
Rhinehold, we spent three years planning the occupation of Germany and Japan.
Really? Was this 1938-1941 then? I seem to remember joining WWII before we had any plan to occupy those countries. Had the war only taken 6 months, then what?
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 2, 2005 01:51 PMRhinehold,
RE;Exit Strategy
“It would have been nice to have one, but we didn’t have one in WWII and that turned out ok in the long run.”
We nuked Japan after years of fighting in the Pacific.
Are you suggesting we nuke Iraq?
You claim this is Bush’s lone fault in his invasion of Iraq:
“The Bush administration wrongly felt that the populace would welcome Americans with open arms.”
You forgot about lying to the world about the threat Iraq posed to the United States so that he could attack Iraq. You also forgot to mention that he was so busy trying to doctor intelligence to get us into Iraq that he ignored his top Generals
when they insist that he have an exit strategy.
You also forgot to mention that the company that did the logistics report on how to best supply the war was in fact the company that is supplying the war and are overcharging and undersuppling the war.
I love the way you find ways to blame the war on Michael Moore.
“Ted Kennedy and Michael Moore who were giving them every reason not to trust us as well.”
Do you think the Iraqi people prior to our invasion were lining up outside they’re Mega Malls to see Bowling for Columbine?
I hear Hillary Clinton was violating the no fly zone for the purpose of covert leaflet drops so the Iraqi’s would dislike Bush and Cheney(That B%*&!).
You say that Kennedy helped influence the Iraqi’s not to trust Bush in order to influence the election in 2000. I don’t know about you but I do not allow Iraqi polls to influence my vote of the President of The United States.If Iraq had the clout to get our president removed from office I think they would have done it by now. I sure would.
Andre,
While I appreciate your zeal, you’ve made a bunch of fallacies in your response to me that it is going to take some time to sort through…
“It would have been nice to have one, but we didn’t have one in WWII and that turned out ok in the long run.” We nuked Japan after years of fighting in the Pacific. Are you suggesting we nuke Iraq?
No, can you point out where I suggest anything like this in my post or responses?
You claim this is Bush’s lone fault in his invasion of Iraq: “The Bush administration wrongly felt that the populace would welcome Americans with open arms.”
No, I don’t believe I ever stated that this was Bush’s lone fault in the invasion of Iraq. I was dealing with a specific, not a generality.
You forgot about lying to the world about the threat Iraq posed to the United States so that he could attack Iraq.
There was no lie, no matter how much you want there to have been one. As I detailed before, Iraq was a threat to their citizenry, their neighbors, the region and the US. You can keep saying what isn’t true over and over but it doesn’t change the facts. Let’s take a look at one of our detractors on the war in Iraq said:
“I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received information that official organs of Saddam’s regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations.” - Russian President Vladimir Putin as quoted by CNN on June 18, 2004
Continuing…
You also forgot to mention that he was so busy trying to doctor intelligence to get us into Iraq that he ignored his top Generals when they insist that he have an exit strategy.
Was he doctoring or cherry-picking? What was the phrase that was decided upon again? Do you know what the difference is?
You also forgot to mention that the company that did the logistics report on how to best supply the war was in fact the company that is supplying the war and are overcharging and undersuppling the war.
Yes, continue with the Moveon.org debunked opinions. I don’t believe there is any way I can get you to change your mind on that one.
I love the way you find ways to blame the war on Michael Moore.“Ted Kennedy and Michael Moore who were giving them every reason not to trust us as well.”
I never blamed Kennedy and Moore for the war. That you have made that large of a logic leap is quite impressive, you must work at it a lot.
Do you think the Iraqi people prior to our invasion were lining up outside they’re Mega Malls to see Bowling for Columbine?
No, I don’t think anyone in their right minds would suggest such a thing. I *do* though think that they can read a newspaper and when wildly idiotic assertions are made in a movie like Farenheit 9/11 and then supported by leading democratic senators as plausable, that gets picked up by national and international newspapers and it given weight that it did not deserve and gives people who already may have a bad or less than good opinion of us more reason to feel that way.
Yes, it is their right to do so, just as it is yours, but that doesn’t make it a good idea.
I hear Hillary Clinton was violating the no fly zone for the purpose of covert leaflet drops so the Iraqi’s would dislike Bush and Cheney(That B%*&!).
Ok, you’ve kind of degenerated into an area so far from anything I said that I’m not sure I want to follow…
You say that Kennedy helped influence the Iraqi’s not to trust Bush in order to influence the election in 2000.I don’t know about you
I’m becoming more convinced of this with each passing sentence.
but I do not allow Iraqi polls to influence my vote of the President of The United States.If Iraq had the clout to get our president removed from office I think they would have done it by now. I sure would.
Wow, all I can say now is ‘What is the color of the sky in your world’? Here it’s a nice blue…
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 2, 2005 02:28 PM“The Bush administration wrongly felt that the populace would welcome Americans with open arms. This was a strange assumption considering this his own father is the one who left them out to die after they attempted to overthrow Hussein previously. Trusting us would be a hard and difficult process.”
That’s not the report I’m getting from my friends that are still over there. Maybe that’s just a one sided view, much like what most of the media gives.
Posted by: Kevin at August 2, 2005 03:45 PMGot it, Kevin. World concensus is wrong, and your anecdotal friend’s stories are right. Stalin took that view too! Look where it got him. Pages of infamy in historical textbooks.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 2, 2005 04:13 PMThat’s not the report I’m getting from my friends that are still over there. Maybe that’s just a one sided view, much like what most of the media gives.
Sorry, Kevin, but there are 3 sides to every story. The media and the left are giving us one, the right is giving us another. The truth is that a large number of Iraqis viewed the US invasion as suspect, that we would leave them once Saddam was deposed and times got tough. There were a number of others who welcomed us. There are those that also despise us.
Thankfully, enough have put their lack of trust aside and joined with those that welcomed us to work on building a new Iraq. The ones that despised us are the insurgents still trying to wrest control back from the US and current Iraqi government.
To be honest, after what we did to them in the early 90’s, I’m amazed and thankful that the county in total didn’t just lynch us the moment we set foot inside the Iraqi boundry.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 2, 2005 04:17 PMRhinehold,
“It would have been nice to have one, but we didn’t have one in WWII and that turned out ok in the long run.”
You fail to mention that Bush’s top Generals and Great Britain warned him not to invade w/o an exit strategy.
“Ted Kennedy and Michael Moore who were giving them every reason not to trust us as well, all for the desire to either political damage President Bush in the run up to the 2004 elections or potentially get him removed from office earlier”
Like I stated before, how is it that Iraqi public opinion would damage Bush’s run for presidency or cause his early removal?
Michael Moore, Kennedy,the Clinton’s and all those hated by the “Right” continuously get scapegoated for this administrations failures by the desperate few that feel this administration is doing a good job.
“On one side, we have a group of people saying that a hard date needs to be made. After this date we would bring all of our troops home.”
No, on one side you have a group who believe that the invasion of Iraq is illegal,immoral and poorly run and want our troops home because they do not deserve to die. We also know that we cannot just set dates or immediately pull out.
We need to make every effort to remove our troops from harms way and save the lives of the Iraqi people ASAP.
David,
It’s odd that you mention Stalin. I had a pen pal in the former Soviet Union whose grandmother…even though his “purge” was made known…kept a picture of Stalin on her wall and revered it.
Odd.
I suppose everyone here will write it off as another “velvet Elvis” story…
Posted by: Jim T at August 2, 2005 06:26 PMIn the laws of human statistics, one can find a following for anyone or anything if it is famous or infamous.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 2, 2005 08:10 PMAll this talk is pointless. The question is: How much are you willing to sacrifice to win Iraq? We need Bush to call for people to volunteer for this war. Its not enough to have yellow magnets on your SUV!!! The Army is now being forced to reduce Troop Levels now due to manpower shortage. We need YOU at the Front!!!
Kindly Post your Name and Email if you agree.
Posted by: Aldous at August 2, 2005 08:57 PMDemocrats demanding an honorable exit plan from the President now is a red herring. It is so, precisely because Democrats know there is no honorable exit now from Iraq.
David, are you sying that Rhinehold, our Democratic leaders, and I are wrong? That we shouldn’t have a well-defined set of goals to be achieved before we pull the troops out?
Ah, Reid and Pelosi. But what about the links of Kennedy, Boxer, Feingold and Woolsey?
Rhinehold, what about Representative Walter Jones, the guy who gave us “freedom fries”, and and Ron Paul, the Republican Representative from Texas. Plenty of Republicans want a hard deadline, too. Should I conclude from their stance that Republicans favor an immediate pull out? Or should we just stick to mainstream thought from both parties?
Seriously, Rhinehold, I applaud your brilliant reasoning that led you to the same conclusion Democrats reached long ago. Don’t stop now. Turn your amazing deductive powers to Social Security, deficit spending, education, and healthcare.
That’s not the report I’m getting from my friends that are still over there.
Sure. I bet that in between shootings and bombings, the Iraqi people are all cheering and giving your friends the thumbs up. Probably waving their shoes in the air, too.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 2, 2005 09:30 PMShould I conclude from their stance that Republicans favor an immediate pull out? Or should we just stick to mainstream thought from both parties?
AP, first you said that no congressman were expousing this view. When I list several, including one who has started a congressional group with over 40 democrats as members who are calling for an immediate return of servicemen, you now say ‘mainstream democrats’ don’t think this way, even though the current leader of the party, Howard Dean (DNC chairman *IS* the party leader) has stated otherwise in the past, as my quote from John Kerry during the debates shows out. He has changed his mind, but that seems to fly in the face of your assertions that the Democrats and their leadership have always been on the ‘right side’ of the Iraq issue.
Sorry, AP, but stating what you have about Democrats is just silly and doesn’t match the history of the past 3 years.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 2, 2005 10:17 PMRhinehold,
I think I’m that Democrat you’ve been looking for!
I never supported the war, believe Bush & Co. should be held accountable for deceiving us, and consider a quick withdrawal of all US forces out of Iraq is our only viable option. But, although this in no way represents the majority opinion of the Left, you attempt to demonize it as equally responsible as the post-removal ‘complete failure’ by the Bush administration, that which you’ve yet to clearly define (other than a bad PR sales job).
You cannot shame me by calling my option cowardly ‘cut and run’, because I’ve never bought into the macho posturing of an infallible America determined never to repeat Vietnam, a mindset further entrenched by 9/11. My objective is to stop the sacrifice of American lives, and greatly reduce the enormous cost we’ve already expended.
The Right’s objective is to save face and avoid admitting defeat.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at August 3, 2005 06:01 AMAP asked: “David, are you sying that Rhinehold, our Democratic leaders, and I are wrong? That we shouldn’t have a well-defined set of goals to be achieved before we pull the troops out?”
Read My KeyBoard: “precisely because Democrats know there is no honorable exit now from Iraq.”
Set all the goals you want, that is part of the red herring. Fact is, no realistic plan is capable of producing an honorable victorious exit from Iraq. We leave because Iraqis tell us to get the hell out, or, we leave by our own decision with Iraq’s future doomed as a peaceful integral free national democracy allied to the US. Neither is victorious nor honorable given the goals in entering Iraq and the price Ameicans had to pay for failing those goals.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 3, 2005 06:30 AMHoward Dean (DNC chairman *IS* the party leader)
LOL! Rhinehold, there are a lot of Republicans who’ve just been surprised to find out that Ken Mehlman is the leader of their party. :)
as my quote from John Kerry during the debates shows out.
You’re talking about this one, right?
“Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean].” - John Kerry, 12/15/03
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what your problem is with this. I think you, me, Kerry, and Democrats agree that, even if invading Iraq was a huge mistake, we should make the best of it. That means setting goals like you, Reid, and Pelosi all said - though Reid and Pelosi said it first. :)
Fact is, no realistic plan is capable of producing an honorable victorious exit from Iraq.
David, anyone familiar with my posts knows I’m not going to argue too hard against that. By all the war aims stated for Iraq, we’ve already lost. President Bush has put us all in the position of scambling for a face-saving “peace with honor” ending.
But I think Rhinehold and the Democrats are right to move the goal post, lower the bar, whatever you want to call it. Let’s define some new realistic, achievable goals before Jaafari, Chalabi, and al-Sadr’s boys in the Iraqi government unceremoniously boot us out on our keesters like the Uzbeks just did.
BTW, Rhinehold, I’ve seen a couple people toss that Putin warning around as if it meant something. No one in the Bush administration had any idea what Putin was talking about, “Everybody’s scratching their heads.”
“Got it, Kevin. World concensus is wrong, and your anecdotal friend’s stories are right. Stalin took that view too! Look where it got him. Pages of infamy in historical textbooks.”
David Remer, how nice of you to say my friends fighting in this war are giving me “anecdotal stories” and comparing their views to what was given to Stalin, because of course they are scared of the fact I would kill off their entire family if they gave me anything other than a positive view or challenged my thinking.
Maybe you would like to hear from people that are actually over there, living amongst the people of Iraq. Maybe you would like to get your head out of the media B.S. and go over and see for yourself. Anybody can research on the internet and in the media and find something negative or positive about anything, I choose to rely on my friends and family that have actually been there or are there.
“All this talk is pointless. The question is: How much are you willing to sacrifice to win Iraq? We need Bush to call for people to volunteer for this war. Its not enough to have yellow magnets on your SUV!!! The Army is now being forced to reduce Troop Levels now due to manpower shortage. We need YOU at the Front!!!”
Aldous, You want are troops out, you want more volunteers. Which is it?
Rhinehold,
I think that the MSM is more to blame for the divide over the Iraq war than political partys fighting for power or control.
Most of the media has become cheerleaders for terrorists. What do they ever report that isn’t anti-war, or that support for the war is falling?
Why don’t they just come right out and tell the terrorists to hang in there, keep up the good fight!
I believe in freedom of the press, but aren’t they also free to run some news specials explaining the things that Iraqi people need to do so we could help them more and get out?
How much airtime is given to the reasons why the power,water, sewers,schools, ect can’t get fixed ?
How many editorials do you see calling for the different factions in Iraq to come together to bargain for peace and shared power?
The sooner the alphabet channels go to local news,weather, and sports, and the NYT becomes known as the fish wrap it is, the better off the world will be.
Posted by: Beagle at August 3, 2005 09:40 AMKevin, I volunteered! US Army 1972 to 1975. Why don’t you get your ass up and volunteer! I have already advised my daughter of the foolishness of volunteering for Iraq. It is a waste of American lives and huge drain on our economic resources.
And that is precisely why the military can’t achieve its enlistment quotas. American parents are patriotic and they are not dummies. They will offer up their children for the defense of our nation. But, Iraq is NOT our nation, and posed no threat to us here. You have every right to believe in a noble purpose for our occupation in Iraq. You have no standing in ridiculing those who see it differently.
But, by all means, rely on your friends stories they we are winning a great victory over there or some such. There are many who have been over there and returned to tell it quite differently. And media personnel have died over there trying to get the truth back to us.
Having been in the Army for 3.5 years during a war, I can tell you, the military has a long and practiced history of managing the information its troops receive about the conflict and what is really happening. They have morale issues to deal with afterall. A good reference for how that works is the movie, Good Morning, Viet Nam! Given these facts, it is not surprising that many of our troops over there believe what they are told by their military propaganda (excuse me, morale) machine. But given the suicide rate of soldiers over there and commanders increasing reluctance to venture out without being encased in Iraqi forces, it does not smell like victory!
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 3, 2005 12:30 PMI’d like to inject a little sense here:
Rhetoric is valueless. Using catch phrase like “all democrats” or “all republicans” or “(left biased)MSM” etc… only devalue anything being said by the poster. Noone speaks for everyone and reporting facts that don’t agree with your world view, although some stories are admitedly wrong sometimes, doesn’t mean those stories are always wrong or biased.
30% of troops returning from Iraq are exhibiting psychologic problems related to their service in Iraq. And this is only 2 years in!
BushI knew attempting to topple Hussein was a big mistake
Excerpt from “Why We Didn’t Remove Saddam” by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
We were disappointed that Saddam’s defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect (…) While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.’s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different—and perhaps barren—outcome.Seems like Daddy was right afterall!
Geez David did I hit a nerve? Good!
By the way, I can’t volunteer due to medical conditions, but it wasn’t for lack of trying. My “ass” would be their with them right now if I could! So don’t preach your “I was in the military” B.S. to me!Kerry did the same crap. I support in the only ways that I am physically able too.
The fact that you even say it’s a waste of American lives it pure Left-sided, Michael Moore, tree hugging liberal B.S. I, for one, don’t agree these soldiers lives were wasted. Sad that you do.
And if you are still so blinded that you think that Iraq didn’t or doesn’t still pose a threat to our Nation, then the conversation with you is pointless.
Posted by: Kevin at August 3, 2005 01:37 PMKevin,
Very convenient. Now wait for your social security disability and welfare checks to show up like a good conservative so you complain about how everything’s turned to crap because of the libs.
Posted by: Dave at August 3, 2005 02:10 PMDave,
I don’t receive either, I work for a living and make a quite comfortable one, thank you. Unlike the Libs, I believe that if you can take care of yourself you should, and I do. I don’t need, nor do I want assistance.
Nice try Dave, but that doesn’t bother me, Unlike the liberal vomit that spews out in what you write.
Posted by: Kevin at August 3, 2005 02:20 PMKevin, as most folks who know my writing here for years, my thoughts are my own and I borrow nothing from Lib’s or Conserv’s that I don’t make my own through research, logic and reason.
I appreciate however, your support of my frequent comments that many on the right can’t hold two thoughts at one time, which is why everyone else’s thoughts don’t count. :-)
I knew some folks who got medical deferments too! Your side called them cowards, back then.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 3, 2005 03:58 PMKevin, btw, you didn’t hit a nerve, you just spouted off without knowing what you were speaking about, telling me I should enlist. I enjoy countering such emotional hyperbole with facts.
I do welcome comments like yours in a public forum, they support many of my points and arguments about folks on the extremes of both sides of the spectrum.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 3, 2005 04:03 PMWell then, you changed Dave, cause you sound exactly like a liberal and you certainly echo their thoughts. Sorry to burst your so called Independent bubble, but it’s true.
My side? What side do you assume to know I’m on? I’m guessing your talking about people not going to Viet Nam due to medical reasons. I was born in ‘68 and wasn’t very interested in politics back then, so the relevance doesn’t work there.
I do support your right to post frequent comments, I believe your opinion is flawed in many way, but I do appreciate people trying to explain how they can think the way they do.
And by the way, I am not without honor or appreciation.
Thank you for the service you provided our country while in the military, I mean that sincerely.
Kevin, I have the same problem David has, just because I might agree with one side or another on a single issue, that somehow prompts people like you to label us in total into that mindset. Then, after the labelling is done you can then simply ‘dismiss’ the views as ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ without having to use your mind or think things out.
David and I agree on many issues and disagree on many more. I wouldn’t call him a ‘liberal’ any more than he would call me a ‘conservative’ yet we tend to take up the left and right sides of issues with each other from time to time.
Yes, he didn’t think that going into Iraq was necessary or that they were a threat. I did, which brings us to our differing viewpoints. But I think that we both agree that the current administration is spending money like they print it (oh wait) and that the democrats are not offering the country much else while sitting on the sidelines saying ‘I told you so’ and looking for any and every perveived slipup as the next ‘nail in the coffin’ while most working people sit and struggle through their days being ignored or spit upon by the power brokers who pretend to serve us.
David, if I’ve gotten your view on the current state of affairs wrong or was a little more harsh than you feel, please feel free to correct me. :)
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 3, 2005 04:27 PMKevin, thank you, that was a gracious response.
Just to be truthfully contrarian, I am sick of all this thanking everyone from military janitors to congresspersons to our military for their service. I enlisted for my own reasons, and in my entire 3.5 years in the Army, I met only one person in the Army who claims to have enlisted for nothing but altruistic reasons, and I frankly, I had my doubts, since he became a lawyer.
The fact is, fisherman have a higher risk of death or injury than our military do, as do some other occupations. I appreciate our military and their service, but, I also know $40,000 sign up bonuses and the GI bill, can be primary motivators for many to enlist. I also know a majority of military don’t enlist with the idea in their head that they will be maimed or die. Hence the idea that most of our military enlist IN ORDER to die or give up their limbs for freedom and country is a hogwash. Yes, most of them take pride in serving their nation as I did, but, as most will tell you if you query them, they enlisted for a number of other reasons as well.
At any rate, if citizens should thank anyone for their service to the nation, it should be those in the VA hospitals and Arlington Cemetary, and all those who have seen their comrades cut down and chose to stay and do their duty afterward. They knew it could happen, and because it did, they are brave, and heroic, and deserve our thanks.
But, pencil pushers, lawyers, doctors, fresh out of college looking to advance their careers in the military deserve the same thanks as any civilian who works for a municipality or county as street sweeper or janitor. They are sacrificing nothing and getting paid well for advancing their careers.
The thank yous I hate hearing about is that of Congresspersons to each other. That is the ultimate insult to taxpayers in lieu of their increasing their salaries every couple years and charging their lifestyles to the working public, all the while indebting our children more and more with each passing year with deficits and debt and passing laws to protect corporations from the mass public they are supposed to represent.
I say honor those who truly make sacrifices, and treat everyone else who gets a public paycheck like everyone else who doesn’t.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 3, 2005 04:39 PMVery accurate, Rhinehold. I respect your differences with me because your differences have been thought out and defended by your own research, logic, and beliefs. Even when your differences approximate that of the conservative right, the way you substantiate your position reveals your thoughts and words are your own, not GOP or Dem. propaganda machines.
I understand most folks believe they haven’t the time or other resources to research and comprehend the complexities of issues debated by the political parties, and that taking Party talking points on face value is a way of handicapping their ignorance, but, I have little respect for them when they go into a public venue and try to defend those talking points with negative labels thrown at the opposition. That to me is mindless and undeserving of respect. Though I defend their right to voice their opinions whether thought out or borrowed. Dialogue always holds out the promise of education and learning and that is always a good thing.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 3, 2005 05:01 PMBatten down the hatches. It looks like post-Saddam Iraq is turning into post-Tito Yugoslavia.
If we’re out before 2010 I’ll be amazed, and I’m guessing that we’re going to be there permanently, much like Germany & Japan.
The crucial question is whether or not we can prevent the country from degenerating into total sectarian choas or not. There isn’t any point in disucssing withdrawl until the horrific eventuality has been precluded definitively.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 3, 2005 06:29 PMChuck, pulling out of Iraq will be a condition for election of President in 2008. If that president doesn’t pull out a year after coming into office, look for the protests and marches on Washington D.C. to begin in earnest.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 3, 2005 06:48 PMI think that the MSM is more to blame for the divide over the Iraq war than political partys fighting for power or control.
Most of the media has become cheerleaders for terrorists. What do they ever report that isn’t anti-war, or that support for the war is falling?
Where was such condemnation of a conspiratorial MSM by the Right Beagle, when support for the war was comfortably over 50% percent? The Conservative Media cabal led by Fox News was able to thwart these ‘cheerleaders’ until 9 months ago, to get Bush elected. What has changed since?
Perversion of service to our country at any level is just plain wrong! I agree with you.
Posted by: Kevin at August 4, 2005 10:30 AMBert,
If you read my post you’ll see I didn’t blame or bash the left, even though I think there is a bias in the media, I didn’t even point that out.
I give foxnews no pass on the problem either.
The problem is uniting the country to cure the problems in Iraq that will keep us there.
The media has the format to do that, for or against the war, right/left doesn’t matter, everyone wants Iraq fixed and our soliders home ASAP.
Posted by: Beagle at August 4, 2005 03:18 PMI am thinking back to what Chalabi said. Something along the lines of, “Get out and we’ll fight our civil war and we’ll win.” Now there are many different ways of looking at getting out of Iraq, but doing it and avoiding a civil war looks a lot more unlikely now. So do you heavily arm the Kurds and Shittes in the next year? (most predict we will see a major withdrawal before US elections in 2006). If we “pull out” and there is a civil war do we leave some US contingents to guard the volatile borders? The big answer seems to be if we can get the Sunnis (Baathists, not jihadists)
to the bargaining table. Fareed Zakaria writes that this is happening, but needs to be done more: http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/080805.html.
But there is no good evidence in my estimation that they want to bargain now. If the US can get them to the table and the Sunnis vote in large numbers in the next election, then it will be easier to leave. If the US doesn’t get any Baathists at the bargaining table and the Sunnis don’t vote in large numbers, then I think we should leave, arm our allies and cross our fingers. (It should be of interesting note Iran and the US have the same allies in this situation).
Much of what is being speculated on in Iraq is unknowable. Did anyone predict the election turnout correctly? Remember the shouts that the elections will not work?? That the are too early? These elections were only 7 months ago. The news media is just as critical and negative as it was in January.
There is a process in place that has been in place for some time. The Iraqi’s deserve our support for a while longer. We shouldn’t pull a single troop out until the constitution is ratified and the elections have taken place, and the new government is organized.
After that, it is time to start coming home in an orderly and professional way, turning over security province by province until we are gone.
When our withdrawl is complete from Iraq and if Iraq is stable, then we need to start moving our troops out of Saudi Arabia, and back onto ships into the gulf.
Our vital interest in the area is oil, the terrorist vital interest is holy sacred land. We can protect the oil supply the same way we did before 1991. There are almost no suicide bombers in the world where there are no occupatio troops on the ground.
We need to have bases at the ready in Saudi Arabia and Iraq in case of situations like Kuwait. We also need a clear new doctrine that states what will trigger our intervention. Basically, if you mess with the oil supply, or if you attack the US we are on our way with rapid deployment forces. On the other hand, we will keep our troops on board our ships and away from muslim holy areas.
In a strange way if getting rid of Sadaam allows us to move out of Saudi Arabia (because the need for troops there is gone), then this war would be worth it!!
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 5, 2005 12:58 AMCraig, I don’t know where you’ve been, but we moved our troops out of Saudi Arabia a couple years ago.
As for the elections, the argument wasn’t that Iraq couldn’t hold elections, but that it shouldn’t hold elections until the result would be meaningful. Without Sunni participation, it’s not a representative democracy.
And if the insurgency is still going when we withdraw our troops, it’s a victory for the terrorists.
I totally disagree that if the insurgency is still going on, and we withdrawal then it is a victory for the terrorists. There will be pockets of resistance for years to come I am convinced. If we equip our allies enough to win, in a civil war type scenario, then we didn’t lose. If the people who were put into power through elections, that our soldiers died to make happen, are victorious in any battle after we are gone, then we win, even if they don’t become the allies we want them to be. The only problem is that now, the old victims (Kurds and Shiites) are now becoming major perpetrators and taking retribution against some Sunnis. This could push out moderate Sunnis if it continues.
Posted by: Steve Chernoski at August 5, 2005 10:37 AMThe media has the format to do that, for or against the war, right/left doesn’t matter, everyone wants Iraq fixed and our soliders home ASAP.
What the Right is too stubborn to even acknowledge here Beagle, is that what keeps Iraq ‘unfixed’, is the continuing incompetence of this administration in handling it. And, that will not change until Bush is honest with the American people, and the American people will not rally around the President until they can trust him!
Your beef with the suddenly non-Liberal MSM, is that they’re exposing those disturbing truths the administration had succeeded in keeping from the nation. And, now that this convincingly clashes with the ‘last throes’ rosy scenario, you’re suddenly calling for patriotic amnesia and bi-partisan cooperation.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at August 7, 2005 07:10 AM
