It's a known fact that the Iraq war has little to do with terror and everything to do with natural resources (oil) and political manupulation of the region. (Iran)

So let's drop the whole "fight them there so they don't come here bit". It's a fallacy anyway. There are lots of terrorists and they can easily be in both places. Non starter.

The call for ending this war, which I tend to call an occupation at this point, is growing louder. There is now bipartisan support for this idea.

What makes Iraq worth it at this stage?

Forget it's unjust because of the whole WMD thing. Can we get something out of Iraq that is worth it?

I'm asking because I don't see it at all. If there is nothing worth getting, there is no reason to escalate the conflict. If there is, then escalation seems wrong because it's not enough, but an all out battle would be worth it and with that would come a draft, but it's gotta be worth it.

This passive aggressive, I'm not winning, but I don't want to admit losing or gaining nothing bit is garbage. Better to just justify an effort, then apply the right effort.

Discuss?

I do not agree with running this thing down main street. But to completely leave right now would be a mistake. I am all for pulling back and re-grouping if you will but not leave the region. Maintain a presence their should the current fragile government need assistance in the continueing battle against terrorism and to insure that the current regional forces are up for the task before leaving. A couple of carrier groups and a few divisions on hand should be addequate for the task but stop with the house to house war! We have a military presence in Cuba why not Iraq. One ready to support the local government in a crisis situation!

I'm fine with leaving Iraq.

My main concern is to not recreate our tragic exit from Vietnam.

Herb

I don't have too big a problem leaving Iraq either.

However, it must be done in a way, as Herb mentions, so that it doesn't duplicate Vietnam. The entire region is very unstable right now and any withdrawal plan must be done over time and with great forethought.

It also can't be done until the local government there is on their feet and running.

While there are no commies that are going to rush in and take over, some other radical group could.

If we bring our guys home, they should be stationed at our borders to insure that terrorists don't make it into our country.

Our borders are way too open. By having the Military at our borders, especially the Mexican border, not only can they insure or at least reduce the chance that terrorists sneak in, they can slow down or stop the drug traffickers.

Here's a radical thought from my warped mind; they need to post signs at the border that state; "If you are caught bringing illegal drugs into America, you will be shot on site"

Ya....right on....Put them signs up on the Canadian/American border! Wait....bad idea....we would have to shoot our own citizens returning home from purchasing affordable but illegal drugs for their medical problems!

You can't have a meaningful discussion of "should we stay or should we go?" without discussing the frame. Is Iraq part of the War on Terror, where all the terrorist bad guys are on one side and we are the Good Guys fighting evil? If so, then of course we should stay - in fact, you should be asking why we aren't sending not 21,000 but 210,000 troops over there to put out this fire of evil?

If the frame is, "Iraq is in a civil war; it was never a real country, formed artificially by the British after World War II, and the Shites, Sunnis, and Kurds have never wanted to live together. Most of the people fighting there are not al Qaeda but simply sectarians fighting on numerous sides. All the US does is make things worse by being there," then of course staying one more day is obscene.

So can you see why it's silly to arguing about America's actions without discussing the basis of the situation?

Andrew

Andrew, Excellent point and very true.

Herb redeems himself!!!!
WOW!

Darktemper, I think they need to open the borders for that kind of "drug trafficking". If out drug companies would charge reasonable prices, then people wouldn't have to go to Canada to get what they need cheaper.

I don't think that will ever happen as our government has a strangle hold on the drug manufactures (spelled FDA) and the drug companies contribute too much money to the politicians coffers.

I was talking about (and I know you were just poking fun) the non medicinal type of drugs. Shoot them people. Bang, bang a quick double tap to the head!

Dang.....was leaning back in my chair reading during lunch and I fell over backwards when I read that. WOW indeed!

To follow the excellent thought that Andrew has started, I don't understand why all the focus is on Iraq, when the focus should be on the USA. What does America need right now to stay safe and free?

With that figured out, and lists prioritized, we can see where Iraq sits in that heirarchy.

IMHO, Iraq would end up being something that second-level diplomats would then deal with, while we deal with the real security problems, like making sure that our ports are as secure as possible ... that we start looking for alternatives to gasoline (AKA "terrorist juice") ... and that we make sure that immigrants and visitors from other countries coming here to the US fit our economic and security needs.

"If you are caught bringing illegal drugs into America, you will be shot on site..."

Sounds a little soft to me. Isn't there some way we could toughen that up a bit?

Sutton, one thing to remember, again in regards to "frames:" Bushites hold as a fundamental approach to fighting "terror" is that we must be on the offensive, not the defensive. So, protecting our ports is not as helpful as invading a country.

I don't completely disagree with this philosophy. I simply think we need to do both. America should be on the offensive against terrorists...BUT, we should do it smartly, and pick the right targets. Any nation that is harboring al Qaeda or another terrorist group should be a target. Miltary action should definitely be an option but not the first one.

I'd say Iraq should have been on the list of targets in 2002, given Saddam's history. The blunder was not using our military as a threat. Saddam opened his borders to weapons inspectors again after Bush started talking about war in the fall of 2002. Given the (then preceived) easy US victory in Afghanistan in the fall of 2002, the message to rouge nations around the world would have been simple and clear: you'd better cave to our military threats like Saddam did, because if you don't, we'll come over and kick your ass the way we did with the Taliban. Cooperate and we'll leave you alone, as long as you behave.

Instead, we are now in a situation where American military threats mean little, because as the rest of the world knows, most of our troops are bogged down in Iraq and can't do much more than threaten airstrikes. America doesn't have the will to fight - we got bogged down in Vietnam and now Iraq, the most we're able to do is lob missiles and bombs at you. So countries like Iran are much less afraid of taking us on. Airstrikes on Iran would simply embolden the right wing and strengthen their political hold on that nation. America is now preceived as much weaker now than it was in 2002. (Basic approach to strength: you look stronger when people fear what you might do to them then what they have seen you actually do to others; they fear what they imagine much more than what they've witnessed and believe they could surive.)

Yes, we need to be defensive too - not protecting the ports in a meaningful way is silly. And we need to look at the threats to American society like global warming and lack of health care. I'd say that the shifting of American manufacturing out of the country is a grave threat to our national security, too.

Andrew

Herb said>>>>
I'm fine with leaving Iraq.

My main concern is to not recreate our tragic exit from Vietnam.

Herb

Had to post it again!!!
WOW!!!!!

"It's a known fact that..."

Missing, you lose an argument by default when you start with that!

But aside from losing debate points, you're right. What everyone misses is that Iraq is part of a bigger issue:

The US is no longer an economic superpower. Instead, we maintain our advantage through military intimidation, bankrolled by debt.

We're in Iraq, but we also have some level of military presence in over 100 other countries. Why? Because we really need to defend our interests in places like Germany?

The US sells an average of two billion dollars in debt to foreigners every day, so that we as individuals can maintain our standard of living, and our government can sustain military spending. This is like a staring contest, where nobody dares blink. The debt devalues the US dollar, but countries who loaned us money can't afford to see the dollar crash. So, they keep loaning us more.

If a country threatens the dollar, (as Saddam did, by the way, by suggesting he wanted to shift to Euros as the currency in which oil would be transacted,) we rattle swords.

When we finally build enough ill-will worldwide to start the dollar's sell-off, it will be an international race to sell off dollar-denominated debts. The disruption in our lives terrorists have threatened will be insignificant compared to the economic consequences of the currency realignment.

Iraq is a mess, but its a distraction from the larger problem. We're nearing the end of the age of the US as an empire, and it's being handled poorly. (Just as it was in Britain's case.)

George Bush, as any US President would, found himself inserted into this story mid-way through the plot. He had to hold things together for eight years, to avoid being the guy on whose watch it all unravelled. Unfortunately for him, he came into office with a personal reason to want Saddam overthrown, and an excuse to do it came during his first year in office.

Taken as an isolated topic, I can't argue with Bush's premise. If you have a hive of killer bees in the neighborhood, there's not enough time or money to seal every crack in every home, and nobody wants to live indoors 24/7. You need to go erradicate the hive. But quick military strikes against known targets are the correct analogy there. "Installing democracy" cannot be done by an army.

The way Iraq was arbitraily assembled from natural enemies, it may take a Saddam to hold it together. The compartively weak personalities now staffing the interim government don't have the skill or the will to hold it together.

(In radio, have you ever seen bold, strategic steps taken by an "interim" manager? If you have, how did that work out for that manager?)

When the US leaves, we, not Saddam, will be forever blamed for destroying the country.

From a purely political standpoint, if I were our President, I'd look for a way to get out now. There's no salvaging his "legacy." There will be no way to get out, now or ten years from now, without putting the Iraqi people through hell. It will no doubt happen within a year after the 2008 US elections anyway.

Try to buy a home in the next 12 months, if you haven't already done so, and make sure you're prepared for a few rough years, financially. The same hyperinflation we saw in the late '70s, used by the US government to pay debts brought on by Vietnam and social programs, will happen again. It's the only recourse left to the government to pay its debt. In the 70s, that inflation reached 20 per cent.

The purchasing power of the US dollar is now roughly one twentieth what it was in 1970. That decade handed our parents a huge gift in the form of retirement-making home equity. If it happens again, you don't want to be a renter.

Man
If Herb is Ok with that then maybe I have to open my mind to "Alternative Rock"!


Nahhhhh "It's crap and alway's will be" Sorry

But that thought is cool Herbert!

You know every time you post your name as Herbert I always think of that one "REALLY FAR OUT AND GROOVY" episode of Star Trek "The Way To Eden"! I think the name Herbert was used on that one!

Paul --- Busted!

I really was not trying to score a point, but rather stimulate discussion. IMHO, it's a technical point, but a defensible one --I hope!

Besides Andrew stepped in and patched the discussion up proper!

More later when I've read through these! (very interesting)

Edit: I was really looking for some new perspectives on the whole thing. IMHO, it's unjust from the get go. We don't have the high ground in the conflict and never will.

So, then take the black eye and get what there is to be gotten and move on. What I'm unclear on is what there is for us to "get" that actually matters.

Personally, I was fine with leaving Iraq once the citizens were freed from Saddam's tyrannical grip.

Just please no more Vietnams, where innocents are slaughtered when we leave.

Up next: Cuba!

Herb

Pattern Bomb it into oblivion! Then put up a US flag and end of story!

I say we give them fair warning and target their military bases.

Herb

We gave them fair warning and Saddam moved the WMD's to Syria or burried them never to be found.

Not that he had any nukes, but the chemical and biological WMD's.

It most likely will never be proven that he did that, and even if it's found out for sure he did, you can bet that the mainstream media will never report it.

" and even if it's found out for sure he did, you can bet that the mainstream media will never report it."

I do not agree with that at all.

Skybill,

There is no logic to Saddam doing any of the things you describe. Why ship them off to Syria, just to hide them? If he was feeling threatened by the US prior to the war, he should want to keep and use them in defense of his country. Hadn't we concluded that he was a madman that would even gas his own people? The same with burying them...why? Plus, the Baathist soldiers that would have done the burying are now terrorists, or insurgents, or secularists - and would be digging up those weapons to use them in the current fighting. No, you statement makes absolutely no sense.

Every week it seems, more accounts about the manufacturing of evidence of WMD's emerges. The Scooter Libby trial testimony is really eye opening. It's becoming more and more clear that no real evidence of WMD's in Iraq in 2003 ever existed.

What is the point of clinging to the idea that Saddam had WMD's - just to avoid the conclusion that the administration was terribly misinformed, or lying?

SkyHIGHbill is just MISinformed like many on the extreme right.

Actually, Skybill is spot on.

Trixter, you wouldn't believe in WMD's if one bit you on the patootie.

Herbarootie

P.S. Whatever a patootie is.

I'm not so sure.

IMHO, that's a pipe dream --a cop out that keeps the hope we have the high ground in the war alive.

Better to just own up to that part of things and go from there. At least we could then get some help, if necessary, to achieve whatever goals make sense at this point.

As it stands right now, it's us and three other nations still engaged in Iraq... That's not good given the level of conflict.

So, we've got leave Iraq, but only if it can be done without too much additional harm to the Iraqi people.

If we leave, beef up defenses here.

This one makes no sense to me. Terrorists are not contained in Iraq... they could be here anyway, does that not demand our attention regardless of the Iraq situation?

Contain the place.

Ok, if we surge with the meager troops we are talking about surging with, what are we gonna get?

-Control of Bagdad again? Other cities?

-Firm control of oil?

-Better quality of life for Iraqis?

Anything else that makes a surge worth it?

Keep spinin' Herb...

"Anything else that makes a surge worth it?"

Yeah. Like saving innocent Iraqi lives.

Those people counted on us to protect them. Iraqis are sitting ducks given the nascent state of their freedom.

No more Vietnam-like slaughter when we leave.

Herb

Ok. I'm not sure the small number of troops we might send will actually have an impact though.

If this is worth bringing our military to the edge, isn't it worth actually moving enough people over there to just do it right?

Would this reason justify a draft in your mind?

I apologize for not having a link to this.

Herb here are the words of the Rev. Jim Wallis, an Evangelical and contemporary theologian. His words are mine. From Jim's Blog dated Jan 11, 2007 after President Bush's SOTU speech.

"When the American people make it clear in the election, and in every public opinion poll, that they want an end to the war in Iraq, he ignores them. When the central recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group is "new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts…that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly," he ignores them. When Republican Senators across the spectrum – from Susan Collins (ME) and Olympia Snowe (ME) to Sam Brownback (KS) and Gordon Smith (OR), and respected foreign policy expert Chuck Hagel (NE) – oppose his plan, he ignores them. (" … a dangerously wrongheaded strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp," says Hagel.) When the top U.S. military commanders in Iraq question the strategy, he replaces them.

George W. Bush is determined to continue making war in Iraq. I agree with Bush on one point – we need a new strategy in Iraq. But last night, George Bush decided to escalate the war and increase the American occupation – which he still doesn't seem to realize is at the center of the problem. Bush stubbornly believes that military solutions are always the best answer and consistently chooses war over politics. But without a political solution in Iraq, no escalation of the war will succeed. Whether in Iraq, or even in the larger war on terrorism, Bush believes, as he said again last night, that we are in a great "ideological struggle" between us and them, good and evil – and that only military solutions against "them" will suffice. Both wisdom and humility (two religious virtues) suggest that political and diplomatic resolutions to conflict are ultimately required. But last night, Bush again chose the primacy of military solutions.

By sending 20,000 more U.S. troops in support of a Shiite-dominated government, into a conflict that has become a sectarian civil war, he has essentially rejected the idea of a unified Iraqi government. Today, the idea of there even being a government in Iraq is another myth of Bush rhetoric, and for the young servicemen and women who daily die, it is a cruel joke to learn we have no real partners in Iraq. There is no real commitment to "democracy" among Iraq's leaders, a goal that Bush again invoked last night; there is only endless sectarian violence – with the government forces themselves acting simply as part of the tribal warfare. The depraved scene of Saddam Hussein's hanging revealed more a revenge lynching than an act of national justice – and became a brutal metaphor for what Iraq has now become. American lives are now the prime targets of the insurgency, while they are also caught in the cross-fire of a civil war. To send more troops into battle in a senseless "surge," without any new plan for political resolution between Iraq's intransigent and hateful factions – is morally irresponsible. We've tried this before, and failed. A new surge will simply mean more young Americans in body bags and wheel chairs, more families left without dads, moms, sons, or daughters, and more slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians. "I don't want to die over there; I don't think it's worth it," said one American serviceman who was interviewed this morning about the President's new plan. He and his new wife had a new baby just five days ago, but now he has been ordered back to Iraq. He named several of his friends who have new wives and babies on the way, who will now also be sent back.

By the classic criteria of a "just war," Iraq was not, and is not, one. Not even close. And at the time of the run-up to the war, a majority of church bodies and their leaders around the world said just that. Pope John Paul II was quite agitated about Iraq, and had he been a younger man, might have actually intervened to prevent the unjust war. Even most evangelical Christians around the globe were against the American war in Iraq, and continue to be – a fact that the U.S. media also missed. There were others, like the American Southern Baptists, who supported their president's war, but on an international scale they were clearly the exceptions.

There is absolutely no way that the American invasion of Iraq could be considered a "last resort" – one of the just war criteria. The inspections officers were working to find and contain any weapons of mass destruction Iraq might have had, and the Bush administration both misrepresented and manipulated the alleged threat from the weapons of mass destruction. The administration lied to start a war. Over time, the brutal Saddam Hussein could have been isolated, undermined, and overthrown (a very worthy goal) from pressures internal and external, and serious proposals were on the table to do just that when Bush went to war. Instead we bombed the children of Baghdad and then allowed the country to slide into bloody chaos. There was never adequate "authority" to wage this war (another criterion) – the United Nations, NATO, and the vast majority of the world's people and nations were against it. Only Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair thought this was a good idea, and their political legacies will be forever shaped by the worst foreign policy decision either country has made in decades. Iraq also failed the tests of "proportionality" and "discrimination" with all the societal damage it was likely to cause (and has): the horrible number of innocents that have been lost through the tactics of "shock and awe," the resulting insurgency against American occupation, and now the civil war that has turned into ethnic cleansing. There was never an "imminent threat" from Saddam, there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 (as we were told), and Bush's war in Iraq was not a central front in the international campaign against terrorism, but rather has turned out to be a serious distraction from it (though the war itself has now transformed Iraq into a haven and school for terrorism).

The war in Iraq was unjust; to continue it now is criminal. There is no winning in Iraq. This was a war that should have never been fought – or won. It can't be won, and the truth is that there are no good solutions now – that's how unjust wars often turn out. The president says that "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States." But we have already failed in Iraq and it has already become a disaster for Americans, Iraqis, the Middle East, and even for the larger campaign against terrorism. The mistaken war in Iraq can only be mercifully ended, in ways that cause the least damage to everyone involved: the Americans and the Iraqis, the volatile surrounding region, and a world longing for security. It will likely take new international leadership to help fix the mess of Iraq, because U.S. leadership has brought one calamity after another. Unjust wars cause massive human suffering. When will we ever learn?"

Herb if we were there to protect the Iraqis then why have over 60,000 been killed since the beginning of DUHbya's war????

"Troops being stretch too thin, doing tasks they never dreamed of, let alone trained for."

A Soldiers Story. (and I have a link)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012902002. html?referrer=email

Trixter, If it was analyzed by who killed the 60,000 Iraqis my bet would be that there would be many more killed by the suicide bombers, car bombs and road side bombs than by our troops.

Making the statement about the 60,000 Iraqis killed without qualifying it is just a way to make it appear worse than it really is.

Don't get me wrong, 60,000 dead is terrible, but it can't be blamed entirely on our troops.

Never said they did

Trixter, I was not pointing the last sentence at you personally.

The 60,000 number is bantered around a lot. Nobody qualifies it.

No matter who killed those 60,000, it's a tragedy. Our actions are the ones we're responsible for, and almost all Americans now agree with the rest of the world that going into Iraq as we did was a seriously bungled affair that has made the world less safe.

"Herb if we were there to protect the Iraqis then why have over 60,000 been killed since the beginning of DUHbya's war????"

How many were killed during the American Civil War? It's a valid comparison, especially if what the left says is true, that it's a civil war there.

Freedom isn't free, my liberal friend.

Herb

"How many were killed during the American Civil War? It's a valid comparison, especially if what the left says is true, that it's a civil war there."

Which country marched into the U.S. in 1860 to remove Abraham Lincoln (a leader loved by some factions, despised by others)? Did that country remain for four years? Did that country bring in corporations to take over the operation of (and profit from) lucrative cotton and tobacco fields?

There are lots of ways that civil wars can start, and play themselves out. Despite the commonality of countryman killing countryman, I don't see how they are at all alike. You're spinning us again, Herb.

Nobody marched into the US to remoce President Lincoln, all President Davis wanted is for Lincoln to leave the south alown.

It was the North that invaded the south, Hence the proper term, "War of Northern Agression".

After reading some more of these, the number of good things to come from Iraq is pretty small.

IMHO, escalation is not worth it, unless we escalate enough to actually control the region.

Anyone want to make a case for 20K or so additional military persons making said control possible?

20,000 troops, thats 4 brigades, and can make a major difference, ic concentrated in Bachdad.

As to the reasons for the war, their complex, but mainy come down to Saddam was on the verge of losing control, and his only hope to stay in power , and alive, was to give the army something, and with the various embargos he was limited in what he could offer.

is only hope was to again invade Kuwaitt and this time go all the way to the Saudia oil fileds, and hope that by threatening them he could keep us out.

He also could very easily have given wmd to various terrorist groups, hoping they would assist in keeping us off balance, for the week or so it would take him to take Kuwait and Saudia Arabia.

Weither he physically had WMD or not is irrelevant, he still had the capacity to produce it on a moments notice.

So I have a sincere question;

So let's say that Iraq get's to the point where they are ready to take over for themselves. In all areas. Then what? Be specific. Most realistic best-case scenario wins.

Weither he physically had WMD or not is irrelevant, he still had the capacity to produce it on a moments notice.

I call BS on that one. Our stated justification for this war was WMD's. Our examples proved to be laughably false. We know the planning for the war was done in advance of the false discovery of WMDs. This is nothing more than yet another attempt to post justify this war. That's a great line, but not great enough to bite on.

We pull out, leaving the multi-nationals to handle the oil arrangements within the framework of the law we wrote for them.

Our military presence in the world is reduced for a time to let troops refresh, retrain, etc...

Democratic congress pushes through a nice cut of the oil profits to help pay for the war that got the multi-nationals in there to begin with. They squeal like stuck pigs, push back with a batch of deep, dark secret scandals that involve nearly anybody that matters.

The end result being a fake victory in that we receive payment, but forego regulations, taxes and other things that help us to pay that money right back through higher costs...

Said congress, riding high on the fact that it still is in power, redeploys the military in a series of well justified, researched and properly executed terror cell hits.

These are successful, largely bringing a lot of the luster back to the US world image.

So, we decide to unite many first tier nations against terror with a flurry of treaties and legislation. Second tier nations sign on, looking to act as suppliers of vital technology, means and methods necessary for the new framework to do what it is supposed to do.

Third tier nations find themselves with terrorists, but also find themselves being ideal for the manufacture of things, so they are tolerated and a global divide becomes a reality. Terror exists, but only in those parts of the world where ignorance still is a significant factor in the daily lives of their population.

Throughout this whole affair, the middle east becomes marginalized as the multi-nationals begin a slow, but potent cultural dilution and gentrification of the region in general.

Heck, I dunno. Maybe we all just blow up and find that Oral Roberts was waiting for us the whole time.

Herb....
Edselehr asked you a question....

Nwokie answered it (it was kinda rhetorical anyway). NOBODY marched into America and triggered our civil war. Depite the label "civil war" (which they both clearly are) there is no connection between the two.

Actually, I disagree to the label "civil war" to the war between the United States of America, and the Confederate States of America, it is more properly identified as a revolutionary war, or war of independence, the CSA had no desire to take over the gov in Washington DC, or to impose their will on the northern states.

That's true. I know that Southerners still call it the 'war between the states' and not the Civil War.

Herb