Replies

Does he explain just how this would've changed the middle east?

I missed the part where he showed how this would've changed the arab world (the real reason we went in.). By his logic we should've just bought off Saddam and left the arab world to stew in their own juices, giveing them no hope fora better life and producing more and more people who see their only hope for change was in the jihadi.

Nothing much, just 3,000 servicemen dead. 10,000? 20,000? I don't know - how many badly wounded. 100,000s Iraqis dead.

America's Wars: U.S. Casualties and Veterans
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html
World War II (1940–1945) [Years of U.S. involvement in war[

Battle deaths 291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842
Nonmortal woundings 671,846

Korean War (1950–1953)
Serving in-theater 1,789,000
Battle deaths 33,741
Other deaths in service (theater) 2,827
Nonmortal woundings 103,284

100,000s Iraqis dead
site your source please.

Iraq apparently still a long way from the stated goal of being a friendly power able to sustain itself.

Says who? The NY Times, Washington Post? jon cary?

Try reading the milbloggers to get another veiw, one by people actually in Iraq

T. F. Boggs
http://boredsoldier.blogspot.com/2006/10/all-you-ever-wanted-to-kno_116193132937069765.html
How does your experience in Iraq comport with U.S. media accounts of the situation over there? What are the gaps in information that we're not getting?

I have written about the media many times and don't have much new to say on the subject but I do not believe the MSM presents the whole picture of Iraq. If the world only sees the carnage in Iraq then the bigger picture certainly is not making it out. There are many cities here that are making great strides and their efforts often go unreported. If the media really want to get the big picture across they do not need to be afraid to report on positive stories. I understand that it can sometimes be hard for them to travel around and accurately gauge the general feel in Iraq but I believe it is their job and if they want to be taken seriously they need to make an effort.

The gaps in info can often be found in the writings of milbloggers like Bill Roggio, Michael Yon, Buck Sargent at American Citizen Soldier, and writers who travel to Iraq like Victor Davis Hanson. Those who come to Iraq in search of the truth will find it and if they don't have stings attached such as many reporters with major companies do, I think it will be easier for them to tell it like it is.

How do you gauge the attitude of the Iraqis toward Americans? Are most of them hostile and uncooperative?

I do not want to pigeonhole all Iraqis so I can only talk about the ones I have come in contact with. The majority of Iraqis I have been around have been hesitant at first in their dealings with Americans but once they come to know us they open up and are mainly friendly with us. Of course some of them will not want to deal with us and will be uncooperative as a result but I don't believe this sentiment runs throughout Iraq. The Iraqis I have been around, Iraqi army, police, and translators have all had a somewhat positive attitude about the direction their country is taking. Of course they probably had a positive attitude towards Americans prior to my meeting them hence their joining in the fight so my view is somewhat skewed.

What is the mindset of our troops in Iraq? Are they disturbed by the naysaying from some quarters about the war? How do they feel about being there and possibly returning later?

The mindset of our troops here is probably not what most Americans think it would be. Many soldiers are not politically minded and don't give much thought as to why they are here or what the consequences of their actions are. However, with that said there are still idealistic soldiers who understand the fight they are in and are doing their best to win the fight against terrorists who want to see America fail. I for one am one of those soldiers and know several others who share the same sentiment.

As far as returning later I would say most soldiers have accepted it. Whether or not they are happy about it is a different question but there still are a majority of soldiers reenlisting. There are also soldiers who continually volunteer to come back. For instance there are a couple of soldiers in my unit who will be volunteering for a third tour as soon as they can. These guys might just be war junkies but they do feel that they are doing something positive with their lives so their motivation isn't all bad.
____________________________________

It would direct you to my tagline.

"Nothing much, just 3,000 servicemen dead. 10,000? 20,000? I don't know - how many badly wounded. 100,000s Iraqis dead."

Wars are costly in lives and money and should consequently be undertaken only if no other option remains. But if the conclusion is no other option remains, the casualties, which are inevitable, become secondary factors.

The loss of life of any one American soldier is regrettable and a tragedy. But we lost far more than 3,000 servicemen in WW2 and yet this did not deter us. The reason was the consequences of losing that war were more dire than the regrettable loss of our troops. I believe the same situation applies here. There were many reasons for attacking Saddam and taken together, justified our invasion. The loss of 3,000 servicemen over several years is regrettable especially in light of the REASON so many have died recently - trying to conduct a social experiment in a fractionated sheikdom that was doomed to failure, while IGNORING the continued menace of Iran and Syria the destruction of which should have been our next objectives.

As for the number of enemy dead, civilian and military, unfortunate, but irrelevant. Our interests and our lives must come first or we have no business operating as a nation or maintaining a military establishment.

"Loss of US prestige abroad. "

We didn't loose prestige abroad because we invaded Iraq and removed Saddam. We are losing prestige abroad because we continue to fight a defensive war and allow third and fourth rate military powers like Iran and Syria to kill Americans in Iraq by proxy with total impunity.

"Loss of the House. 2008 presidential chances badly damaged."

The Congress was lost for many reasons. I believe a good part of it had to do with alienating the Republican base and independent Americans with an insane border policy and amnesty programs for illegal invaders. The mismanagement of the Iraqi war was also a factor, but I believe it was the MISMANAGEMENT of the war, rather than the war ITSELF which was the cause. If indeed the American public was unable to connect the dots as to why we were there in the first place, either the average American is infinitesimally ignorant, or the administration infinitesimally inept at communicating, or perhaps both.

"Iraq apparently still a long way from the stated goal of being a friendly power able to sustain itself. "
Iraq will never be able to sustain itself with hostile neighbors like Iran, Syria and even Saudi Arabia on its borders stirring the pot. But in the final analysis, the state of affairs in Iraq should only concern us from the perspective of using it as a springboard to launch destructive attacks on our other enemies to either side of it - Iran and Syria.

"Syria and Iran gained a huge amount of face and power in the Arab world by their success in fighting a proxy war in Iraq."

EXACTLY. And this is why it is essential we do NOT pull out of the Middle East militarily until we destroy the current regimes in Iran and Syria as we did the regime in Iraq. Once THAT is accomplished, we should simply pull out.

Leave them to their fates and let them stew in their primitive religion and cultural backwardness. We should only concern ourselves there militarily again if another lesson needs to be delivered.