Iraq War Withdrawal
is a Military Defense centric issue
Let's Learn From Our Mistakes Going In
I support a radical departure from our current strategy in Iraq. I support getting out of that nation. I don't know how we'll do it. I have some ideas, but they really don't matter here.
But what we do need to do is learn from our invasion of that nation that we can't trust the future of nations on a half-dozen men. Of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleeza Rice, zero percent of those were experts on Middle Eastern affairs. That said, Condi probably has forgotten more about the Middle East than I ever will know about it, but still, that's not the A-grade lineup of people we need to be trusting. We can't rely on one person to get us out of Iraq, or we'll have a bad situation like on we have now, we just won't have people there. It has to be an advisory board of mixed expert opinions coming up with a solution that can be enacted as quickly as possible.
I think that Obama or Clinton will listen to experts much better than Giuliani will. That is why I support them for President in 2008.
I highly agree with the fact that we should get out of Iraq ASAP, but I think the problem is how. No matter how much we want to get out, the past years have dropped us into a sinkhole that we're bogging ourselves deeper and deeper into. If we pull out, we open up the path to an uncontested civil war, but if we stay, innocent Iraqis get slaughtered by other Iraqis trying to make a point. The easiest way out? Invent a time machine, go back a few years, and convince Bush to never join in this entire fiasco.
I agree that we are not fighting this war right, but my solution is different. As opposed to fleeing like whipped dogs, I propose we use the same strategy we used against the germans: Total Annhilation. History has shown us time and again that an opponent beaten into submission will not rise up again. After we fought WWII, Germany and Japan turned out ot be relatively normal countries. We've been in Iraq 8 years, and it still sucks. Granted, it is slowly getting better. This month represents are continuing trend toward stability. WE as AMericans have the greatest military in the world. We use our might against Iran, and the terrorists in Iraq will lose a grand majority of its support.
No. History has definitely not told us time and again that a beaten enemy will not rise again.
Your example of Germany in World War II will do just fine. We won WWII. Great. Why did we have WWII? Because we beat the living poop out of Germany the first time, when we didn't need to. We had them ready to surrender, but we (and the rest of the world) wanted total defeat for the horror they had caused. And we crushed them. And they remembered that we kicked them when they were down, when that upstart named Hitler told them he could give the Germans their glory back. Arguably, the nature of war and the world had changed after World War II enough such that they probably would not rise again, what with Germany being divided and constitutionally banned from developing nuclear weapons. (Such is the arrangement of the new Germany and Japan.)
Minor complaint, we have not been in Iraq 8 years.
Nor, in my view, is it getting better. This month will be another in this fight on civil unrest in that nation. Civil unrest, like the civil unrest we can't fight in America, much less in the volatile Middle East.
Crushing more Middle Eastern nations will not win the War on Terror. Iran, specifically, would be a bad place to attack. If Iraq is another Vietnam, then Iran would be another Iraq. Oil prices would skyrocket. (From a record-high $90 a barrel this week!) Furthermore, an attack on Iran would destabilize the region beyond all comprehension. Even furthermore, while Iranian president Ahmadenijad is extremely unpopular with his people at the moment, an attack would likely re-popularize him, and toppling him would probably lead to a massive insurgency in that nation like the one we fought and are continuing to fight in Iraq. Toppling Iran will not cut off Terrorist's support. It will give them strength. They will have another recruiting cause, based on that we will have proved, once again, that America (in their perspective)is the enemy of Islam. Rather, to win the war on terror, we must disprove them. Show the Muslims that America is not the enemy of Islam. We can't do that when we occupy two of their nations.
Also, be careful. Don't claim that we have the best military in the world. Here's a list of several other nations that have felt that they had the greatest military in the world. Egypt, Sparta, Athens, Macedonia, Rome, (Napoleonic) France, Great Britian, Spain, Germany (Twice!), Japan and the Soviet Union. Heard from any of them recently? Any number of fascist states claim that they have the best military, for example, North Korea is rather proud of its military(which has more people than the American military). Also, each nation's respective God blessed those nations and their great militaries.
Our military has, historically, taken the lead in developing advanced weapons and developing military stragetists to employ them well. But we should realize that this alone does not give us advantage in battle. For example, very few of our soldiers have such advanced technology. Lastly, our military is really quite small. (Under one million active duty, last I heard.) Overconfidance in the military, and too much reverence of the military is one of the hallmarks of fascism, and it has always spelled doom for the militant nations.
Sam said: I think that Obama or Clinton will listen to experts much better than Giuliani will. That is why I support them for President in 2008 bayoubruce said: The democrats that were voted into the house and senate securing the majorities, all promised if elected to do exactly that. Promised an end to Iraq and hold Bush accountable. Why do you think these two are different?
sam says:
"I think that Obama or Clinton will listen to experts much better than Giuliani will. That is why I support them for President in 2008."
It's fun to bash Bush after the fact but we knew going into Iraq exactly what we know now. Clinton voted for the war in Iraq. What makes you think she'll listen this time and won't invade Iran?
My mistake on the 8 years in Iraq thing, I got my numbers mixed up. It happens. And as far as I am concerned, Overconfidence is not as bad as underconfidence in one's military. And I do realize that the US Military may have a rival -- Israel, but we trained them, so that is a moot point. Underconfidence in America's military is the hallmark of liberalism.
We are slowly winning this war too -- In the past five months, terrorist operations in and around Baghdad have dropped by 59 percent. Car bomb deaths are down by 81 percent. Casualties from enemy attacks dropped 77 percent. And violence during the just completed season of Ramadan--traditionally a peak of terrorist attacks--was the lowest in three years. This is a good sign of winning. Surely you've bin Laden's own (although) minor concessions.
As for the huge rise in oil prices if we were to attack Iran (which is at the moment tactically unsound, I will concede that), we should be taking more advantage of our own oils. We havn't built a refinery in 30 years, during which time our needs have grown drastically. If you wanna keep the price down, let us do things domestically with our own refineries and drilling sites.
America it is time for change,
That’s right; we have a unique opportunity right now to take advantage of the economic strength and world position which America has built over the last 200 years.
Everyone today asking, “What is our overall diplomatic plan?” We seem to have none… well here is mine.
We must build our own Country, solving the problems of Energy, Health-Care, and Environmental responsibility, just to start the list. We MUST start the work here at home and re-build the world respect for a model of government and common sense which we are losing today. The Nations of the world will then build a fresh new respect and desire to be a part of the American model of world life.
So it all comes down to, “let’s take care of America today” and re-earn the respect and cooperation of the World. Only then can we influence and change political tensions which are creating stress throughout the world.
Stop reaching to send mankind to MARS, with billions in your tax dollars, until we solve the energy needs of the world. Give those brilliant minds a new goal and task to accomplish today! (Energy). Energy will far outweigh any trip to MARS far before we have the ability to make MARS a reality. Today we see Russia starting to align with Iran, why? Because they must look out for their own future and energy needs, regardless of political world tensions. They flex their military muscle of independence by showing their ability to threaten the Northern borders of US and Canadian borders several times during this past summer. What we need to do is show them, we have the answers right here in America for energy, and many of the same issues which worry the people of their country. The place and people to align themselves with is America! You can keep the tight-knit group of politician the media has chosen to lead this Nation or you can step out of the dark ages and tell America, enough is enough and I want to keep what freedoms we have today in tack, I want to stop worrying about terror, paying bills or getting sick and losing my house. I simply want to leave a better place for my children to grow up in and be proud of what we together have accomplished.
America, Help me take the White House back for the American people and build a Nation that we all can be proud of!
Choose the wrong leader now and we will find ourselves endlessly working to support the bad policies and spending of past generations. We will loss our dominance and standing in the world theater of life and will give up the freedoms which built this Nation.
I stand for the people of Middle America, and the shrinking voice America has in our world today.
Look at your congress, talking and spending time writing HR-106, upsetting one of our strongest and most important supporters on the war against terror, over an issue from 90 years ago! Good grief Charlie brown, we have children going without health-care, gasoline and energy issues taking money out of American workers pockets at an alarming rate, and you in congress can find the hundreds of hours to work on issues which could be handled by the private sector???
I will bring a new sense of purpose and urgency to our government to work for the Americans who are struggling every day to pay the bills for which our leaders are spending like there is no tomorrow.
Support is building and even at this late date, we have the chance to make a difference and bring a new sense of propose to Washington DC. With your help, we can win this election for every man, woman and child in this country.
Conservative means preserving ideals not preserving tradition.
Break the tradition of paying more every year for living life and receiving less every year for working every year for a better life.
It is time to step outside the box of traditional thinking and seek American ingenuity to plan for the future and to pay for the future!
I would like to invite you to my website to review my Nation Building plan, which includes Iraq and the middle east in whole. I would like to invite you to share your thought and to share this information with all your friends and family members.. It's time for change TODAY not 20 years from now!
-Keith Sprankle Republican Presidential Candidate 2008
sam says:
"Toppling Iran will not cut off Terrorist's support. It will give them strength. They will have another recruiting cause, based on that we will have proved, once again, that America (in their perspective)is the enemy of Islam. Rather, to win the war on terror, we must disprove them. Show the Muslims that America is not the enemy of Islam. We can't do that when we occupy two of their nations.
Lastly, our military is really quite small. (Under one million active duty, last I heard.) Overconfidance in the military, and too much reverence of the military is one of the hallmarks of fascism, and it has always spelled doom for the militant nations."
I thought all of this was particularly well put, especially regarding showing the Middle East that we are not their enemy. The best way to keep them from attacking us, is to show that we're not a foe. Invading their countries certainly doesn't show that.
gueb says:
"sam says:"I think that Obama or Clinton will listen to experts much better than Giuliani will. That is why I support them for President in 2008."
It's fun to bash Bush after the fact but we knew going into Iraq exactly what we know now. Clinton voted for the war in Iraq. What makes you think she'll listen this time and won't invade Iran?"
Completely untrue. Before the war, we knew that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction." Funny how we never found those. I would never have supported the war if we had been told the truth.
This is a really interesting forum post.
Who thinks the best way for us to get out of Iraq is a quick and complete removal of our troops vs. a slow and stable release of our troops back home?
I'm all for getting out, but I personally feel that a slow and steady approach my be the safest strategy for everyone involved.
I disagree. I think the US should stay in Iraq until security improves, otherwise the situation will deteriorate much faster and to a much greater degree than its present state. If the US leaves, it is highly improbable that the violence will swiftly abate. While western soldiers are targets of much of the violence, most of the violence is pointed towards their fellow Iraqis. Without an adequate police force or military and without a functioning government, the sectarian violence will certainly worsen and Iraq will endure even greater human suffering. A majority of Iraqis agree, although it is a tiny majority. A BBC/ABC poll published in September report that 53% of Iraqis want the U.S. to stay.
Leaving Iraq to suffering in this state, or worse, is neither in our interest or Iraq's interest. Iran will quickly move in to undermine Iraq's government and back our enemies.
The recipe for success includes, in my opinion, a functioning government that is representative of the population and gives minorities (Sunnis and Kurds) enough rights to feel secure. The infrastructure needs to be rebuilt (difficult to do under the current conditions) so that the oil wealth can be properly distributed. These things have yet to be achieved, and until then, I don't think we can give up on Iraq.
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think its too early to say Iraq can't improve.
I question your poll. I have heard of a poll that 80% of Iraqis want us to leave, and that 47% feel it is justified to kill Americans. I heard of my poll a while back, though, so yours may be better.
I often cite a Thomas L. Friedman op-ed in the New York Times that says, among other things, that a gradual pullout will not work. The situation will detreriorate in areas that we no longer have the strength to mantain psuedo-order in. We're All In Or All Out, as the title of the Friedman piece says.
Bethany, do you really think the situation in Iraq can improve? We've been there for years, and the situation is deteriorating. I honestly think we can say that the situation will not improve.
I think we have five options in the region. 1. Stay. That's no good. 2. Attack Iran. I've already talked about that in this topic. 3. Drop Iraq like a hot potato. That option has problems, but I think it will, in the end, come out well for the States. 4. Split it up. That could solve the problems, but they could just keep fighting. 5. Install a military dictatorship. That can have its own problems, based on America's less-than-stellar history of backing people in the Middle East.
George Bush knows that none of these options will be very good or graceful, and is thus leaving the problem to be solved by the next administration, so that the Clinton administration will take all the heat for whatever happens in the country.
By the way Keith, I say keep your platform in your profile and your blog. If you wanna start a new thread about it, go for it. But don't interject it in the middle of a genuine discussion.
You didn't even say anything about the topic at hand. I don't know anything about you, but you've already lost respect from me.
I agree, jdubb. Keith, if you can't afford real advertising, please don't pollute my threads with your rather lame attempts at a presidential campaign. Also, Keith, please don't imply that we can't solve the energy crisis and go to Mars at the same time. The fact that much of the technology that could get us to Mars would probably be implemented into sustainability efforts on Earth (such is the nature of the space program), to think that America cannot solve two problems at once is shortsighted, insulting to America, disproven by history, and possibly a falsity put forward by the Bush Administration (It would benefit him for America to think that we can't investigate possible high crimes of Presidents or solve Global Warming while fighting a war on terror). Keith, you look old enough to remember July 1968, when we sent a man to the moon. Can you remember what else was going on at that time? Well, let's see... Vietnam, the Cultural Revolution, the Civil Rights movement, and one of the most tumultuous presidential elections in history. Oh yeah, and the Hee-Haw show premiered on CBS. We can fight in Iraq, (or stop, as I advocate), free ourselves of foreign oil, and save the planet at the same time. We fought the Germans and the Japanese at the same time. We can solve two problems at once, man. Your shortsightedness has turned me cold on your quaint little campaign, my friend.
sam says:
"I question your poll. I have heard of a poll that 80% of Iraqis want us to leave, and that 47% feel it is justified to kill Americans. I heard of my poll a while back, though, so yours may be better."
It's great to be skeptical, but I have a link to my poll, which was conducted by both the BBC and ABC. Maybe you can dig up the one you're referring to so we can compare.
I often cite a Thomas L. Friedman op-ed in the New York Times that says, among other things, that a gradual pullout will not work. The situation will detreriorate in areas that we no longer have the strength to mantain psuedo-order in. We're All In Or All Out, as the title of the Friedman piece says.
I haven't read that and I'm not going to because I don't really see Friedman as a great military strategist. I kind of enjoyed his attempt to be an economist though.
Bethany, do you really think the situation in Iraq can improve? We've been there for years, and the situation is deteriorating. I honestly think we can say that the situation will not improve.
uh, yeah. that was the point of my post.
I think we have five options in the region. 1. Stay. That's no good. 2. Attack Iran. I've already talked about that in this topic. 3. Drop Iraq like a hot potato. That option has problems, but I think it will, in the end, come out well for the States. 4. Split it up. That could solve the problems, but they could just keep fighting. 5. Install a military dictatorship. That can have its own problems, based on America's less-than-stellar history of backing people in the Middle East.
There is also the proposal to hand over Iraq to the UN. I think that all of these options are terrible and the best among them is to stay longer for reasons previously stated.
George Bush knows that none of these options will be very good or graceful, and is thus leaving the problem to be solved by the next administration, so that the Clinton administration will take all the heat for whatever happens in the country."
Well, that could be true. i also think that Bush believes we should stay so that means that the responsibility will be shifted to the next president.
As much as it was a mistake to invade iraq to begin with. You must remember that this is part of the war on terror. Thanks to Bush's incompetence, America is stuck in a quagmire in iraq, I do not see how Bush could do anything more to lose to the war on terror. But the democrat party is not much better, just wanting to run. We can not just pull out of Iraq. This is a war of ideas, al qaeda's stated goal is to remove all middle eastern governments and unite the middle east under a single taliban like religious state, America is merely an obstacle to that goal. They are not merely about creating violence, they are revolutionaries. To pull out of iraq, would give their side a huge moral and propaganda victory, we can not afford that. You do not what to leave a power vacuum in iraq and open it up to a taliban like government forming. You do not want the average muslim to regard America as an enemy and to think that terrorism is a valid and workable tactic, currently that view is extremism.
Bethany, I thought I could get away with just saying my statistics, but you called my bluff. Turns out, I can do even better than that. Here's a September 2007 poll in which 57% of Iraqis say it is acceptable to attack American forces. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983027.stm
Perhaps the 53% of Iraqis who you say want us to stay want us to stay so they can keep attacking us. (joke)
This poll also states that 93% of Sunnis feel it is justified to attack Coalition forces. As morn says, this is a war of ideas. But the way to win a war of ideas is not to invade the nations of the people whose hearts and minds you are trying to win. I agree that we must win the War on Terror by convincing the moderate muslim that we are not their enemy, but how is keeping American forces in Iraq accomplishing this? I argue that it is doing the direct opposite. We are affirming everything the extremists say about Americans wanting to kill Islam. We need to get out before we can win this war on ideas.
Morn, you are misinformed to think Iraq is part of the war on terror. Saddam did not harbor al Qaeda. He hated them. He probably saw them as a threat to his power. Here's what I think this war was about. George Bush and his cabinet planned for war, and that planning gave the plan the momentum it needed in the minds of the President and his cabinet to be put into action. I don't think the President really took a step back and said, "Do we really need to do this?" It may have been a really tough decision for him. I hope it was, and that these stories of ulterior motives are false. But I think his mind was simply, perhaps unconsiously, made up about going into the nation, and that's why we are there.
Please do not call my party the "democrat party." We are the Democratic Party. To steal a line from someone, (John Stewart?) how would you like it if I called your party the Republican Party? And furthermore, the Democratic Party wishes to find the best solution for the Iraqi people and the American people and enact that situation as quickly as possible. Some Democrats feel that the best solution would be to leave. While you portray that as Cutting and Running, I think the true fool is the one who cannot he has lost.
Lastly, the point of my last post, Bethany, was to say that there aren't any good exits in Iraq, but that staying there forever without changing strategy is the worst option of all. So, yeah. Of course those options I listed are bad. And do you want to say that the deeply divided factions of Iraq will someday put down their guns and join at a table of brotherhood, with the American armed forces at the table as well, if we just stay for another year? Or two? Or three? Or a hundred?
Iraq didn't used to be part of the war on terror, but it is now because terrorism is how people have reacted to the invasion. The war was a mistake, but we're left with it and to walk away would have bad consequences. Like I said, Bush has been doing a lot to try and lose the war on terror. I think his motivation was more to do with peak oil (btw the price is going to $100 a barrel). But to give up is not an option. If you're going to just walk away, you're going to tell the moderate muslim that terrorism is a good tactic that is justified because of the results.
sam says:
"Bethany, I thought I could get away with just saying my statistics, but you called my bluff. Turns out, I can do even better than that. Here's a September 2007 poll in which 57% of Iraqis say it is acceptable to attack American forces. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983027.stm"
Sam, this is apart of same poll I sent. They are both conducted by the BBC and ABC. They don't contradict each other.
sam says:
"Perhaps the 53% of Iraqis who you say want us to stay want us to stay so they can keep attacking us. (joke)"
It's not MY statistic. It's from the BBC/ABC poll. Your poll also reports that the number of Iraqis who think the US is responsible for violence has significantly decreased since Feb. 07. They are starting to blame Iran and Al-Quaeda more for the violence.
The number of Iraqis who think the US should leave immediately has increased since Feb 07, but the total is still less than 50%.
sam says:
"This poll also states that 93% of Sunnis feel it is justified to attack Coalition forces. As morn says, this is a war of ideas. But the way to win a war of ideas is not to invade the nations of the people whose hearts and minds you are trying to win. I agree that we must win the War on Terror by convincing the moderate muslim that we are not their enemy, but how is keeping American forces in Iraq accomplishing this? I argue that it is doing the direct opposite. We are affirming everything the extremists say about Americans wanting to kill Islam. We need to get out before we can win this war on ideas."
Of COURSE Sunnis are against American forces. We kicked them out of power and we're not really forcing the Shia-led government to be more generous in sharing power. They are afraid that the government will oppress them as Saddam's Sunni-led regime oppressed Shiites and Kurds.
sam says:
"Lastly, the point of my last post, Bethany, was to say that there aren't any good exits in Iraq, but that staying there forever without changing strategy is the worst option of all. So, yeah. Of course those options I listed are bad. And do you want to say that the deeply divided factions of Iraq will someday put down their guns and join at a table of brotherhood, with the American armed forces at the table as well, if we just stay for another year? Or two? Or three? Or a hundred?"
I agree, good point. We shouldn't stay there forever and I don't think I ever said we should. We should stay until the security situation is better. That means weeding out Al-Queda and Iran. Building up Iraq's infrastructure, increasing oil exports, fairly distributing oil revenue, and giving Sunni's more power in government while not upsetting the Shiites will all help to end the violence from Sunni Iraqis.
Here is a link to BBC report on the outcome of the surge: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6993516.stm
