Posted on 10/30/2006 10:47:42 AM PST by TexKat
We have a political goal with the war just being an extension of the means to achieve it along with diplomacy and economic aid. A "win" for us is a stable, democratic Iraq, which will not be a sanctuary for terrorists and a threat to its neighbors. Also, we need Iraq as an ally in the WOT. Economically, we want the Iraqis to increase their oil production. That is how I define victory.
And I am not going to dishonor them by refusing to count them as killed. Let the death count be what it is. Doesn't change my mind about what we're doing or that we can't quit now.
I haven't and don't compare our military casualties to civilian deaths due to living in the US. The "context" is the objective versus the losses. We didn't keep a scorecard in WWII using casualties as the measure of whether we were winning or not. We tried to minimize them, but the achievement of victory was paramount because we believed that our very survival was at stake.
When Clinton pulled out of Somalia after the Blackhawk down incident, he was sending our enemies the message that we were casualty averse. We didn't have the stomach for the fight. Losing 2,814 military personnel in Iraq [or twice that much] over a 44 month period should not be the basis of a decision to cut and run or stay. If the mission is deemed important and vital, then casualties are really secondary, especially as low as these numbers are.
Agree 100%. After Vietnam it is now acceptable for traitors to live among us and not just to live but to also undermine the war and the nation and be proud of it. Very sad but very true.
Well, given the present de facto sectarian divisions between Kurd, Sunni, and Shiite, how about a stable partition of Iraq? And given the present reality of theocratic governance, how about a partition with yet another set of middle eastern Islamic dictatorships? Would that be a win?
If not, how long do we keep trying to fit the square democratic peg into the round Islamic ***hole before we decide to stop wallowing around in-country and re-engage our pre-invasion air, sea, and economic containment policies?
Someone who dies on leave in Kansas can hardly be called a "war dead" or labelled as "Bush's fault".
So the "bad guys" are the "terrorists". Easy enough. Just head out into the street and shoot the ones wearing the "bad guy" hats and the "terrorist" sunglasses. Can't miss 'em.
But wait. Are the terrorists the various Sunni insurgent factions who are attacking each other, the Shiites, the Kurds, and US soldiers?
Or are the terrorists the numerous Shiite militias who are attacking the Sunnis, the Kurds, and US soldiers?
Or are the terrorists the Kurds who are mounting their own militia attacks against the Sunnis and Shiites?
Or are the terrorists the Iraqi "police" who are acting complicitly with insurgent factions and militias of choice?
Or maybe the terrorists are the various governmental factions that are cooperating with their chosen insurgent group or militia and actively advocating for and pursuing the expulsion of US forces?
Whatever. Just shoot some Iraqis. If you get the wrong one, the worst that can happen is a court martial. Have at it guys.
The problem is, YOU'RE normal. Liberals are NOT normal.
So in short, US troops are there because they're there, and under the Geneva conventions, once they're there, they can't leave, at least not until there's a stable government, which there likely never will be, so there you have it. Interesting reasoning.
But I still don't see how this has anything to do with "our survival" as a country.
First, the Iraqis don't want a partition of the country. Iraq is a soverign country, an inconvenient fact. Second, from a pragmatic standpoint, it would be an enormous dislocation of millions of people. Except for the Kurds (who are predominantly Sunni), the Shi'a and Sunni Arabs are mixed together. Baghdad is primarily Shi'a. There is plenty of intermarriage. It would be like separating Protestants and Catholics in the US. Third, the division of oil revenues would be a real issue and well as how it is shipped. The Kurds and predominately Shi'a south have the oil wells, but the Sunni provinces don't. Fourth, a separate Kurdistan would invite tremendous opposition from Turkey and Iran. Finally, who would impose such a division?
If not, how long do we keep trying to fit the square democratic peg into the round Islamic ***hole before we decide to stop wallowing around in-country and re-engage our pre-invasion air, sea, and economic containment policies?
The current Iraqi government is less than six months old. It is a little early to throw in the towel. The people of Iraq have braved life and limb to vote and to confirm a new constitution. They deserve our support. Containment doesn't work against non-state actors like AQ. Do you think containment would have worked in Afghanistan when the Taliban were in charge?
I'm confused. The news today is that 88 people died, which they say is a particularly bloody day.
But earlier today I heard a report that there are 100 people dying EVERY day.
Which is it?
"You have been born in the greatest country in the world. It is well to learn the ethnic backgrounds of your parents, to love and cherish the ancient folklore. But never, never forget, you are an American first. And millions of Americans before you have fought for your freedom. The Nation holds all the terms of our endearment. Support, defend and honor those whose duty is to keep it safe."
bttt
Except, of course, for those that do. And amongst those who don't want a partition, their preference is elimination of their tribal enemies.
The current Iraqi government is less than six months old. It is a little early to throw in the towel. The people of Iraq have braved life and limb to vote and to confirm a new constitution.
Oh honestly. This kind of pie in the sky nonsense is precisely the kind of myopia that got us into Iraq in the first place -- without a clue about its tribal make-up. I'm sure you don't kid yourself into believing that with just the right "dialog" the Palestinians and Israelis will one day live in happyville, and there is nothing whatsoever to indicate any different future for the warring factions in Iraq.
There is no "current Iraqi government," and indeed no functioning government whatsoever south of Kurdistan. There are a number of independent city states controlled and operated by independent militias, and a number of independent gangs ensconced within these city states. Ethnic cleansing is in full swing, with the number of internal refugees, mostly Sunnis, exploding over the past few months and now exceeding a quarter of a million.
The number of attacks on Shiite mosques has increased every week, with 69 such attacks since February compared with 80 in the previous two and a half years. The Health Ministry is run by supporters of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, with hospitals in Baghdad and Karbala systematically killing Sunni patients and then dumping their bodies in mass graves.
The tribal hatreds are centuries old, and the practical reality is you're never going to get these folks to agree on any form of combined government.
Iraq is a soverign country, an inconvenient fact.
Iraq was cobbled together geographically by the British without the least regard for pre-existing tribal identities, and remained unified soley by dint of a fiercely brutal military dictatorship. It is a "sovereign country" in the same way that the Sudan is a "sovereign country."
They deserve our support.
Who does. Which faction, militia, tribe, religious sect, gang, war lord, or corrupt politico are you suggesting that we "support."
Containment doesn't work against non-state actors like AQ. Do you think containment would have worked in Afghanistan when the Taliban were in charge?
I have no idea how you got from containment of the eventual and inevitable theocratic sub-countries that will arise out of present-day Iraq to ostensible containment of Al Qaeda. Combating Al Qaeda does not necessitate our wandering aimlessly around a civil war battlefield with a bullseye on our back. Indeed, combating Al Qaeda will continue in a much more highly effective fashion if we shed the military waste and distraction of dodging bullets fired by folks who are by-God determined to kill each other.
There is a unity government elected by the people and it does not want a partition. The Iraqi Constitution contains provisions for a federal state and local autonomy. Let's give the Iraqis the time to work out the modalities and not let a distinct minority drive the process.
Oh honestly. This kind of pie in the sky nonsense is precisely the kind of myopia that got us into Iraq in the first place -- without a clue about its tribal make-up. I'm sure you don't kid yourself into believing that with just the right "dialog" the Palestinians and Israelis will one day live in happyville, and there is nothing whatsoever to indicate any different future for the warring factions in Iraq.
The big difference is that Iraq has been a country since 1932 and has a national identity. And it is pure nonsense that we did not know about the tribal makeup of Iraq. The State Department, CIA, and DOD were/are fully aware of the history of Iraq, its demographics, and political system.
There is no "current Iraqi government," and indeed no functioning government whatsoever south of Kurdistan. There are a number of independent city states controlled and operated by independent militias, and a number of independent gangs ensconced within these city states. Ethnic cleansing is in full swing, with the number of internal refugees, mostly Sunnis, exploding over the past few months and now exceeding a quarter of a million.
Yes, there is an Iraqi government and it is functioning. You are buying much of the MSM crap that paints the entire country in chaos and upheaval. The militias need to be disbanded and eliminated. It will take time and treasure to do that. Here are some other perspectives on what is going on in Iraq.
Fact from Fiction: A Report from the Front
The number of attacks on Shiite mosques has increased every week, with 69 such attacks since February compared with 80 in the previous two and a half years. The Health Ministry is run by supporters of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, with hospitals in Baghdad and Karbala systematically killing Sunni patients and then dumping their bodies in mass graves.
There is no doubt that sectarian violence has increased, aided and abetted by AQ. The fact that there is an increase in violence does not mean that we should give up and walk away. No one has ever said it would be easy.
The tribal hatreds are centuries old, and the practical reality is you're never going to get these folks to agree on any form of combined government.
Iraq has been a country since 1932. I just don't accept it as a given that Iraq cannot be governed by a democratically elected government under a constitution and a federal system. Iraqis seem to believe it is possible despite assassination attempts and actual assassinations of government officials. Over 8 million Iraqis voted three different times to approve the current government and its constitution.
Iraq was cobbled together geographically by the British without the least regard for pre-existing tribal identities, and remained unified soley by dint of a fiercely brutal military dictatorship. It is a "sovereign country" in the same way that the Sudan is a "sovereign country."
There are plenty of countries with a colonial history and articifically drawn borders. Indonesia is a good example. You can define "sovereign" anyway you want, but Iraq is a sovereign country with defined, recognized borders and a government. It is a member of international organizations including the UN. Sudan is also a sovereign country. You don't seem to understand the meaning of sovereign.
Who does. Which faction, militia, tribe, religious sect, gang, war lord, or corrupt politico are you suggesting that we "support."
The democratically elected government of Iraq.
have no idea how you got from containment of the eventual and inevitable theocratic sub-countries that will arise out of present-day Iraq to ostensible containment of Al Qaeda. Combating Al Qaeda does not necessitate our wandering aimlessly around a civil war battlefield with a bullseye on our back. Indeed, combating Al Qaeda will continue in a much more highly effective fashion if we shed the military waste and distraction of dodging bullets fired by folks who are by-God determined to kill each other.
AQ is in Iraq and based on captured documents, considers Iraq to be the central front in their struggle against us. These are the same people who killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and carried out attacks in East African against our embassies and the USS Cole among others. They have also declared war against the US in 1996 in bin Laden's fatwah. If we walk away from Iraq, AQ will remain in Iraq and use it as a base to carry out its operations against us. We need to combat AQ in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, including in the US.
AQ has also had the stated goal of fomenting sectarian violence In Iraq. It is not in their interest to have a united, democratic Iraq aligned with the US in the WOT.
If, as you suggest, the paper government of Iraq solidifies into a functioning entity at some point in the distant future, I'll view it as a welcome miracle. In the meantime, I view our protracted expenditure of blood and treasure on that faint hope as a perfect waste.
As for the Sudan, I offered it as an example of a "sovereign nation" splintering itself into bloody shards. Such is the nature of civil war.
In the meantime, I view our protracted expenditure of blood and treasure on that faint hope as a perfect waste.
It is only a waste if we walk away now and leave a failed state. We shouldn't leave until the mission is accomplished. The only way the enemy can win is to create the kind of attitude you express here at home. You are their last best hope. I will reiterate, the best way to honor the sacrifice of our personnel and the treasure invested is to accomplish the mission. Troop morale is high and so are reenlistment rates.
As for the Sudan, I offered it as an example of a "sovereign nation" splintering itself into bloody shards. Such is the nature of civil war.
There is no civil war in Iraq yet. The six month old government will meet the challenge with our help and resolve. A Democrat takeover of the House will, no doubt, undermine that effort.
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.