Posted on 03/04/2006 5:22:11 PM PST by Former Military Chick
The only difference is if the cause and the means used are just.
70 percent of CONSERVATIVES of approve of what Bush is doing.
And those are the ONLY people I care about.
Really?
Suicide bombers- Cowards that don't announce their presence and kill innocent men and woman indiscriminately apart from any national identity or national referendum endorsing these acts.
American military- Authorized representatives of the U.S.A. that announce their presence, seek to miminize ACCIDENTAL civilian deaths, and target ONLY the enemy by order of the elected President and funded by elected representatives of a free people in coordination with another duly free government (Iraq).
Quite a few differences besides merely means and the causes representated. Do not peddle that nonsense to me.
What "crossfire"? "Crossfire" occurs when you are between two groups. But we are helping to defend the democratically-elected Iraq government, at their request, from a terror insurgency fueled by a minority. Whatever else that is, and however bad a civil war might be, that's not "crossfire".
Maybe our military bungled it by sending in ground troops instead of standing back and zapping Iraq to rubble with high-tech naval and air power.
The end result of Iraq being "zapped to rubble" was not among our objectives.
It has long been accepted military strategy not to fight on the enemies’ turf and terms.
We chose to open this front in Iraq, voluntarily. Those are our terms. Many of our enemies have travelled to Iraq to meet us simply because we are there - looks like they're the ones violating your military strategy.
At this point it appears that America has done all it can for Iraq.
Not so, America can continue to play the caretaker role we are playing as Iraq's nascent democratic government struggles to build a civil society. All that is required is a little patience, or is that too much to ask?
There is nothing more to be gained by spending additional American lives and resources.
We can prevent Al Qaeda from assuming power and creating a terror safe haven in a naturally-wealthy Middle Eastern country. This would be a HUGE loss; preventing it is therefore a huge gain. This is so non-debatable that the mere suggestion of ceding this territory to Al Qaeda (for no good reason, I might add) is frivolous and idiotic to the point of irresponsibility.
Nothing remains to be done except to secure the Iraqi oil flow.
... and its democratically-elected government against an ongoing terror assault from our enemy. Or do you simply not care whether Al Qaeda gains the foothold of a wealthy state sponsor?
We could easily do that by simply seizing the oil fields and operate them under a U. S. protectorate.
Not clear how what you suggest is any different from status quo. Iraq is, at present, a de facto U.S. protectorate already. I guess the difference is that you want us to "seize" the oil fields (why?).
Iraq has become the central Islamic battleground into which an endless stream of Muslim terrorists can be funneled to grapple with the “Great Satan.”
Another way to put it is that it is a sinkhole for Muslim terrorists to be captured and killed by the "Great Satan" there instead of wreaking havoc elsewhere. And you want to do away with that situation, why? If it's the central battleground, shall we not fight the battle? Or shall we retreat? If so, why?
After a raid into Iraq, Muslims’ flee back across the borders or fade into the civilian population making it impossible for our forces to fight decisive set-piece battles.
We are fighting an enemy whose beloved tactic is terror. There is no such thing as "set-piece battles" in a terror war. To say that we should retreat from any battlefield in which we cannot arrange for "set-piece battles" is to say that we should surrender entirely.
The only way the U. S. can win such a fight is to unleash total war on the whole country as we did in World War II on Europe and Japan.
This is just a non sequitur. Situations not analogous.
The alternative is to allow another Third World country to hand the U.S. another stalemated military defeat as we suffered in Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, and Gulf War I.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's precisely what you're advocating here.
Muslim countries who covertly or overtly support the Islamic Jihad can easily supply men and war materials to keep a perpetual guerilla war going on forever in Iraq.
For all the good it will do them. You act as if you believe these nihilistic terrorists are accomplishing something of military (or any other) value in Iraq. It is precisely the opposite. To the extent that you're right about Muslim countries' supplying men and war materials on this nihilistic sacrifice, they are essentially pouring those resources down a pit instead of using them on something which could do us significant damage. Sounds ok to me.
I might add that the jihadis in Iraq have caused Al Qaeda's cause a huge PR setback by their actions there. Surprise, surprise, it turns out that slaughtering Muslims indiscriminately isn't quite the PR coup Zarqawi et al think it is. And you intend to scare me with the promise that they could continue? If Muslim countries intend to continue wasting their resources supporting this PR disaster indefinitely then by all means, let them do so.
President Bush has made it clear that our immediate task in Iraq, after removing Saddam, is to stabilize the country, train Iraqi troops, help the Iraqi factions to form a government and assist in the establishment of a constitutional democracy. But it’s fair for critics of the Bush administration to ask: what is our long term goal in Iraq?
Read over your first setence again; that is the long term goal. You may as well have written "President Bush has said 2+2=4. But it's fair for critics to ask, what is 2+2?"
Is it to move in as an imperial power and permanently colonize Iraq?
No. "Colonize"? No. Go look up the definition of "colonize". We are not doing anything even remotely resembling "colonization".
Is it to establish democracy as we know it?
Not necessarily. Just a democracy (which is shorthand for, reasonably decent consensual government).
Is it to bring peace to a part of the world that has seldom known peace?
"Bring peace" cannot be a goal of military action per se, that is nonsensical. To the extent that there can even be defined such a state of affairs as "peace" (is there "peace" in the U.S.? yes? but what about in Compton, CA?), "peace" will have to follow (if it does) from some tangible goal... such as a reasonably decent consensual government. If it does not, well too bad, but that makes the tangible goal no less worthy of pursuit.
As to colonizing, I don’t believe Americans would stand for a long occupation of another foreign country, although Iraq would greatly benefit.
You are confused. "Colonizing" and "occupation" are not synonyms. We currently occupy (just for starters) Germany, Japan, and South Korea militarily, and have done so for a long time - the very thing you insist Americans wouldn't stand for. But does that mean we have "colonized" them?
Looking at history a good argument can be made that Middle Eastern nations are not capable of self-government and are very nearly ungovernable except by a theocratic strongman.
A facile and self-serving argument, sure. "We're gonna abandon the majority of you to the violent minority, cuz we've looked at your history and" bla bla bla.
Wake up and look at the facts: Iraqis have voted in a constitution and a government for themselves. They have participating in self-government. It is a democracy, right now. But its government is under assault by fascists, thugs and zealots, and needs our help to stand. It appears you don't wish to provide that help, for whatever reason of your own. But instead of just saying that, you instead decide they're "not capable of self-government" (because they're being attacked? did 9/11 prove that America is "not capable of self-government"?) and wash your hands of them. Facile.
The hope that Iraqi forces will ever be trained well enough to keep order and defend Iraqi borders is probably too optimistic.
Iraqi forces are people. People can learn to use implements and follow simple orders. Iraq is a territory. Territories can be defended. Non-pacified people are people. They can be pacified or killed. These things have occurred zillions of times in zillions of places throughout human history, yet you make them sound like magic tricks when applied to Iraq. Why? Is Iraq a special-magical "can't defend"/"can't pacify" zone? Or is it that Arabs are particularly incapable of learning how to point and shoot, write and execute laws, and so forth?
Except for the Turks, Middle Eastern troops have never -- to put it kindly -- demonstrated an ability to perform well as an army.
They don't necessarily need to "perform well", just good enough. And your criticism is self-nullifying anyhow, because their foes are also Middle Eastern. If Middle Eastern troops are so incapable then for Iraq to defend herself against her attackers shouldn't be a problem.
As for peace, there can never be a realistic peace in a region where personal freedom and liberty are as rare as indoor plumbing.
Circular argument, basically. Lack of personal freedom and liberty is a symptom of lack of peace, not its cause. You speak as if lack of personal freedom and liberty are features of the landscape there, unalterable as mountains. Rubbish.
It’s time, I believe, for us to move on in the war on terrorism.
What does this even mean? "Move on"? To where? Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Where would you rather us fight them? North Dakota? They might not agree to that.
We must establish a series of steps for withdrawing and then carry them out leaving Iraq free to determine its own destiny.
Um, and this is different from what we're doing, how?
Still, we must leave within a reasonable time. We cannot nation-sit Iraq forever.
Straw man. Of course we can't do that "forever". We can't do anything "forever". Since when was "forever" on the table? You say we must leave within a reasonable time. Well who can disagree with that? The question is what's the definition of a reasonable time? You say we can't nation-sit forever but we sure as hell can do it longer than the attention-span of a 15-year-old watching MTV.
Your entire post is laden with an overarching assumption that our military presence in Iraq is seriously threatened and/or that there is some sort of crisis point reached or nearly reached, that the situation is urgent or dire or about to break in the short term. I wholeheartedly reject these notions and think they are based on absolutely nothing of substance; I do not believe you can defend them or state in objective terms where the urgency lies.
Best,
Hell no, look at Germany, Japan, and Korea. - oh, wait...
you have GOT to be kidding.
Coming on FR and citing polls is nothing more than the MSM/DU posturing, and it is also showing your ass here for all to see.
its not a pretty sight. - Take it back to the DU, unless you really are saying that the ABC polls are just peachy for you...
I hope you don't eat with that same filthy mouth from which comes your filth. It is well known that the use of profanity is a weak attempt of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.
As to the polls......give me a break. When any poll numbers, regardless of source, are favorable to Bush, the Freepers go into a slobbering adulation frenzy yet if the opposite results are shown then the polls are demonized.
My reference to polls were not to those put out by MSM, which show Bush's job approval rating so low that if he were to run for a dog catcher, he couldn't be elected. I am making reference to the internal polls by the GOP and the White House that has them worried that Bush's decline will have a drastic negative effect on mid-terms. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
You really need to look into doing something about that potty mouth of yours and while at it, do some attitude adjustment............oh, perhaps some elective surgery; have the blinders removed so you can finally see reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.