Effective for the long term security interests of this country. Frankly, I don't care about the political ramifications if we are doing the right thing. And we are. The Middle East is vital to our national security and the global economy. It has been a festering sore on the world body politic.
Removing Saddam and his two degenerate sons was a good thing for the region and the Iraqi people who were liberated. It has also helped remove Syria from Lebanon and the termination the nuclear program of Libya. We are also fighting some of the same people who took down the WTC on 9/11, bombed our embassies in East Africa, and attacked the USS Cole. i.e., AQ and bin Laden.
A country with no (at least accessible) WMDs, no defense, a shadow army, and a ragtag insurgents (mostly Iraqi deadeners, <10% foreigners) bogging down the greatest military machine on earth? At least Viet Nam had a real leader.
Bogging down the greatest military machine on earth??? You must be buying the MSM and Dem crap about what is happening in Iraq. First of all, we already won the war. Saddam and his miliary were defeated in May 2003. The country was liberated, has held three elections with up to 8.5 million voting braving death and injury, a constitution written, and a government in the process of being formed. This was all accomplished in three years. I guess you would be calling us bogged down in Germany and Japan in 1948.
So who are we fighting? A very small minority of the population of 25 million comprised of AQ, Baathists, criminals, and others. Estimates run from 10 to 30 thousand. They are incapable of carrying out any significant military unit activities, hold no territory, and have no viable political alternative or agenda save for anarchy. They rely on IEDs and suicide bombers to make sporadic terror attacks in a discrete, small area of the country. In sum, they represent absolutely no military threat to us or the Iraqi government.
We are also rebuilding the neglected infrasture of Iraq. More electricity is being generated now then before the war. Thousands of police and military have been trained and Iraqis are taking on more and more of the security responsibilities. We are winning the peace.
I served in Vietnam, including during the Tet Offensive. Iraq is not Vietnam by any stretch of the imagination. The only similarity is the distorted MSM portrayal of the war and some of the gullible American public who buy it. The only way we can lose in Iraq is the same way we lost in Vietnam, cut and run because the American public stopped supporting the war. We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam. Hopefully, we won't make the same mistake again.
In three years, we have lost 1862 personnel to hostile causes, or about 600 a year or 50 a month. Our casualties are trending downward over the past six months. If this nation cannot stomach this low level of casualties in pursuit of our national interests and to destroy the organization that attacked us killing over 3000 mostly Americans on our soil and who have declared war on us, then we don't deserve to be the world's lone superpower.
I know personally that many people in the armed services had no use for Clinton, but there was nothing like the unease that's being expressed now. The generals could have written books and Colin Powell was considering a run as POTUS. I think we are fooling ourselves if we think there isn't a serious problem here.
Pure BS. The military voted overwhelmingly for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Reenlistment rates are high overall and even higher in Iraq. Just because a very small minority of flag officers express dissatisfaction out of the thousands who now serve and who have retired, doesn't mean that the entire military has a sense of "unease." What do you base that on? Your "feelings?"
I'll take the word of a general who was actually commanding troops in battle in Iraq, over a civilian government whose personnel have no direct experience in warfare.
These generals have their own agenda, some of it having nothing to do with military matters. Wesley Clark wants to be president. Zinni wants to sell books. Kerry trotted out the flag officers who supported him at the Dem convention. Adm Crowe was appointed Ambsassador to the UK because he supported Clinton. Etcetera, etcetera, etc.
There are many more flag officers who support the President. Tommy Franks does and he actually commanded troops in battle in Iraq. If there is such a ground swell of military flag officers against Rumsfeld's conduct of the war, why have only five or six spoken out? FYI: Rumsfeld was a naval aviator. He also is the youngest and oldest SecDef in history.
Buck up man. Get a hold of yourself. Now is not the time to go wobbly.
Then we shouldn't be there fighting. We weren't fighting an insurgency war in Japan and Germany years after the victory. Whatever sophistry we can sit here and spin, the country, who were 90% behind the POTUS several years ago, now have serious doubts... because they didn't think we'd be in this position. Blaming this all on the MSM isn't going to be a winning strategy in November. The president needs to address this head on. Scotty McClellan isn't going to do it..
A very small minority of the population of 25 million comprised of AQ, Baathists, criminals, and others. Estimates run from 10 to 30 thousand. They are incapable of carrying out any significant military unit activities, hold no territory, and have no viable political alternative or agenda save for anarchy.
If they are that small, we should leave. We've been training Iraqis (who certainly know how to fight - look at the casualties they inflicted on Iran in the 80s) for two years. They speak the language. They are of the culture. They need to take it over. And we need to get the foreign contractors out and have the Iraqis themselves rebuild their country.
If this nation cannot stomach this low level of casualties in pursuit of our national interests and to destroy the organization that attacked us killing over 3000 mostly Americans on our soil, and who have declared war on us, then we don't deserve to be the world's lone superpower.
We have fought several small countries in the last two decades, including a country armed to the teeth by Russia, and have had nowhere near these kinds of casualties. This isn't Russia, China or even Serbia. The person responsible for the 3000 deaths here is still on the loose reportedly somewhere in Pakistan. Many people have become understandably confused that "dead or alive" determination from the admin. appears to have fizzled.
Pure BS. The military voted overwhelmingly for Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Even stranger that there is an unprecendented number speaking out now, even from those recently commanding troops in Iraq. I respect the opinion of people who do the fighting, and I know many. The military does not have a bias against Repub presidents.
Buck up man. Get a hold of yourself. Now is not the time to go wobbly.
My going wobbly is of no import. The POTUS needs to stand up and reassure the public - and not through poor, wimpy Scott McClellan!
That, by the way, was one of Bin Laden's key selling points for attacking us: That we were too decadent to defend ourselves, and that we would give up and go home.
Every loss matters on a personal level, but on a military level, our losses in Iraq are trivial - at its worst during the occupation, our military in Iraq had roughly the same mortality rate as being in your mid 40s. Recall that people were screaming about the quagmire in Afghanistan before the fires were out in the WTC, and we still haven't lost as many troops (including automobile accidents, heart attacks and other non-combat fatalities) as we lost in one morning of not dealing with the problem.