Posted on 03/11/2007 10:56:39 AM PDT by srmorton
A front-page story in The Post last week suggested that the Bush administration has no backup plan in case the surge in Iraq doesn't work. I wonder if The Post and other newspapers have a backup plan in case it does.
Leading journalists have been reporting for some time that the war was hopeless, a fiasco that could not be salvaged by more troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy. The conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the extra troops didn't exist. Even if the troops did exist, they could not make a difference
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The rats' worst nightmare....
Excellent article.
We are not in Iraq for the Iraqis we are there for ourselves, to defend our freedom and our way of life by destroying all the islamic terrorists organizations and regimes who are fighting there either directly or by using their Iraqi agents.
The latest in a never-ending list of "reasons." The sands are continually shifting on this one. I'm hearing more lately from Iraq debacle supporters that we are there to "save face" and "leave with honor." Whatever.
Let's say you're right. So what? You seem to assume that it's a necessary war aim of ours to prevent this foreign people from fighting civil war amongst each other. Why? What the heck do you or I care whether they choose to fight civil war amongst each other, whether anti-government insurgents exist? That says nothing either way about whether the "surge" is "succeeding" unless, of course, one postulates that "preventing any of them from choosing to fight civil war amongst each other" is a precondition for success on our part.
But why would that be? You're basically saying that, because (you assert) there are insurgents simply waiting us out, that means we can't/won't succeed. Can you name any other war in human history where the victor decided that, for some reason, they hadn't really won unless/until every single human on the losing side permanently renounced all conflicts amongst themselves? Talk about a high bar. Me, I'm content with (1) the elected government still stands and (2) Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda-copycats, and other potential troublemakers are prevented from gaining a solid power foothold. Time takes care of the rest.
Fact is, 99.999% of all previous human societies would instantly recognize that we already won in Iraq, several years ago.
Not at all new reason. The President has been saying for over three years that Iraq is the central front of the war on terror, even the terrorists are saying it as well.
I'm with you. It's not for lack of us trying. It's the people we are trying to help who are lacking.
I don't "assume" it. It's been denied that it was even happening, as well as implied and espoused that it can be overcome by our leaders. I don't know if it should be a "war aim." But our leadership has said it is.
Our leadership has said it's a war aim to permanently prevent anyone in Iraq from choosing war/insurgency? When?
The president says a lot of things.
LOL... you lost the argument and that is all what you can come up with?
Thank you for playing.
I don't recall this being listed as one of the reasons for invading the country.
It doesn't matter. If this is the reason, we will not succeed without also conquering Iran, Syria and inevitably Saudi Arabia. Thus, if we are fighting for this reason we have no coherent exit strategy and thus no way to define victory or of even knowing when victory occurs.
Iraq is and long has been one of the most secular of Muslim countries. For this reason, we have the shortest track upon which to demonstate that allowing Islamism to domintate in politics is dangerous to the human welfare of all Iraqis.
The spectacular bombings killing women, children and all manner of civilians has demonstrated the powerful truth of America's political argument to Iraq. We will stay and pacify Iraq-- no matter what happens.
If the dems were lucky enough to get a pullout-- we would be back inevitably. We have already gone back once. We have militarily attacked Iraq several times.
Permanent bases are a good idea. We must solidify the notion that we cannot be dislodged. We are winning. The key issue is tips. We are getting more and more tips to act upon. As long as these go up, we know the domestic population supports us and wants the rats gone.
If that is the case, then we shouldn't have an exit strategy other than total victory. We shouldn't entrust our security to the Iraqi army.
Recall that over 70% of the Iraqis voted in favor of their a democratic government and constitution. The vast bulk of Iraqis want this thing to succeed.
There simply isn't the broad base of opposition to make the "insurgency" morph into a "civil war". Never has been.
Indeed, there is firm evidence available that the surge is working.
The MSM has cut-back sharply on its Iraq coverage. The less one hears from the MSM, the better is the news that is being made in Iraq.
This is true. But one problem in Iraq is the three differing ethnic groups. Iran, for example, would not have this problem. Iran was traditionally US friendly up until 1979.
Let's just say we had opted to conquer Iran instead. I don't think we would be facing the same problems with internal civil war- at least not between ethnic groups. If Iran were to descend into civil war after a US invasion it would be more the hardcore Islamists versus those Iranians who did not want to be ruled by a theocracy.
This would play right into our hands and what we wish to achieve in the Middle East- assuming we helped the pro-freedom side defeat the Islamists.
In Iraq it isn't so clear cut. The Kurds want autonomy and ultimately their own state. This causes problems with the Turks. The Shia majority rightly (by the rules of democracy) want to rule. The Sunnis are not wanting this. Saudi Arabia sides with the Sunnis and if they involved themselves in the conflict they would simply add to the chaos. Thus, no clear solution will emerge.
Back to Iran, Saudi Arabia has no great interest there because the country is Shia in the first place and seperated geographically from Saudi Arabia by Iraq.
I don't believe we will pacify Iraq anytime soon. I don't believe Iraq will even be a nation in the future. The Kurds will probably get what they want in the end and we may see a move by Iran to annex part of what we now call Iraq. (this is of course if we don't nuke Iran pretty soon which is also a possibility)
I'm not disagreeing with you- I'm just adding to the discussion. But in the end, I don't think America will have the stomach or the will to remain in the Middle East. The dems will eventually force us to withdraw. Chaos will descend on the entire region. We will come in at a later time with different parameters and conditions in play and try to sort it out again.
Not a promising prospect.
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.