Iraq insurgency in 'last throes,' Cheney says

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

The media was a factor, yes.

So if the media had not reported the facts coming out of Vietnam, we would have won?

[Swaggs]

What exactly is the job we need to finish?

Find WMD or evidence of? Accomplished. If they have them, we are either not going to find them or they are no longer able to be used.

Oust the evil dictator? Accomplished. We got Saddam and his undies. His sons are dead.

What's next? The other options that I have heard are "Keep the terrorists over there (Iraq), instead of here (US)" and/or "Establishing a democracy in the Middle East (hopefully it will spread." Either way, that leads to us occupying and directing Iraq for a long time.

[SFL Cat]

There is a difference between ...

"A suicide attack today killed fifteen people, including three American soldiers..."

and

"Another suicide attack has left 15 dead, including three American soldiers. Once again it appears the Bush administration has underestimated the resolve and resources of the insurgency. One can only wonder how much longer the American or the Iraqi people will tolerate such losses."

And, of course, this bumps the story about a disgruntled employee going into an office complex somewhere in Peoria, Anywhere USA and blowing away five or six co-workers.

[MrBigglesworth]

SFL Cat, just to be clear, you are now backing off the claim that the media was responsible for the loss of the Vietnam war, correct? Also, another question:

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I wonder if the media was like it is now back during WWII if we would have even won the damn thing. We lost more soldiers on Nomandy Beach during one day of fighting than we have during the first Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq combined. I wonder if Teddy Kennedy, of "Sheets" Byrd would have asked FDR to resign for his gross mishandling and misplanning of an invasion that cost us so many soldier's lives?

What is the reason that you think we invaded Iraq, and what is an appropriate human cost for the completion of that goal?

[SFL Cat]

No, I'm not backing off at all. It's not the only reason we "lost," but it was certainly a leading factor.

I think the reason we invaded Iraq is because the current administration thought Saddam had WMD and had intelligence that he was actively seeking ways to export some of those weapons to terrorists groups for use against American targets. Since they either weren't there, have been moved, or are still hidden, I think the administration has been fishing for other reasons (all good, but probably not the original reason) to justify being there, especially when all the opposition cries of "seeeeeeee....no WMDs," began.

As for Saddam, I thought Bush's daddy should have knocked him off during the first Gulf War. Bush Sr. certainly shouldn't have left the opposition elements in Iraq hang out to dry. If we can help establish a stable democracy in the region, I think the dividends from that alone will be worth going.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

No, I'm not backing off at all. It's not the only reason we "lost," but it was certainly a leading factor.

I think the reason we invaded Iraq is because the current administration thought Saddam had WMD and had intelligence that he was actively seeking ways to export some of those weapons to terrorists groups for use against American targets. Since they either weren't there, have been moved, or are still hidden, I think the administration has been fishing for other reasons (all good, but probably not the original reason) to justify being there, especially when all the opposition cries of "seeeeeeee....no WMDs," began.

So now, if I am following your logic, the media is being petty by dwelling on what few deaths we have had, even though those deaths were in vain because our original reason to go to war turned out to be completely unjustified? Since the reason for our invasion was fabricated, how many deaths would be 'too many', in your eyes?

[SFL Cat]

Fabricated? No, we're not talking about a CBS news story. Incorrect? Possibly, but then even those countries that didn't want us to invade were certain he had WMDs. Worth It? I think so, especially if we can establish a stable democracy, but only time will tell.

The media is petty only when they slip in political commentary or a particular slant while supposedly reporting objectively (which tends to be a majority of the time these days).

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Fabricated? No, we're not talking about a CBS news story. Incorrect? Possibly, but then even those countries that didn't want us to invade were certain he had WMDs. Worth It? I think so, especially if we can establish a stable democracy, but only time will tell.

CBS News story: Evidence was poorly sourced and trumped up. The basic facts behind the story are, so far as anyone can tell, true.
Iraq war: Evidence was poorly sourced and trumped up. The basic fact behind the rationale for war, that there were WMD's, is false.

Calling the former "fabricated" and the latter "incorrect" is a bit intellectually dishonest.

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

The media is petty only when they slip in political commentary or a particular slant while supposedly reporting objectively (which tends to be a majority of the time these days).

I agree with you, they have been derelect in their duty recently, with their focus on missing white women instead of the Downing Street Memo, and their so far ignoring of the fact that we are now negotiating with terrorists.

[MrBigglesworth]

From the American Armed Forces Press Service:

Cheney Attributes Spike in Attacks to Insurgents Sensing Defeat
By Sgt. Sara Wood

Increased violence and a growing number of foreign insurgents are signs that the United States is close to accomplishing its objective in Iraq, Vice President Richard B. Cheney said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer June 23.

You can't make this stuff up.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

From the American Armed Forces Press Service:

You can't make this stuff up.

Whether he is correct, or not, the VP is certainly entitled to his opinion, just as those who claim we are in a Vietnam-like quagmire. I think in six months to a year, we'll find out for sure whether we are close to victory or in a quagmire.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Whether he is correct, or not, the VP is certainly entitled to his opinion, just as those who claim we are in a Vietnam-like quagmire. I think in six months to a year, we'll find out for sure whether we are close to victory or in a quagmire.

Wasn't that what was said 6 months ago?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wasn't that what was said 6 months ago?

No.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Back then we were "turning the corner."

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Back then we were "turning the corner."

Well, the one thing we do know is that if we were just fucking things up all by ourselves, the terrorists wouldn't be bombing us, now would they?

Where is Iraq today if the terrorists quit bombing?

Many of you keep blaming America for this mess, but we aren't the one's setting off the bombs in the mosque's and in the markets and on the roadsides.

It is our enemy that is doing that. And they aren't doing it because we are being mean to the Iraqi people, it's because we are helping the Iraqi people.

And the more the Iraqi people progress away from the oppressive rule of a dictator, the more the terrorists and former Baath party want to blow people up and hide.

Terrorism isn't a winning strategy and it won't win the hearts and minds of these people in the end. All the anti-US propaganda in the world won't make up for the fact that the US is trying to help the Iraqi people and the Terrorists are killing them.

The President has asked for your patience, not for your blood or your sweat. He's asked that of his military. Being supportive would so much more help this war for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

All the anti-US propaganda in the world won't make up for the fact that the US is trying to help the Iraqi people and the Terrorists are killing them.

I think a competent, rational administration would be able to help the Iraqi's. Unfortunately, we have to go through the rebuilding withe the administration we have, not the administration we wish we had, and there are certain known unknowns and some unknown unknowns that the administration can not handle. Really though, if you think the American government cares a rat's ass about the Iraqi people, I have some nice beachfront property in Baghdad for sale, real cheap. Even if you concede that Iraqis and not the WMD's were the real impetus for invasion, the real goal was American power and hegomony, not the benefit of the Iraqis, which was a secondary goal at best. Any neocon essay will tell you that.

[clintl]

Rumsfeld said today that the insurgency might last another 12 years. These knuckleheads can't even agree among themselves.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Many of you keep blaming America for this mess, but we aren't the one's setting off the bombs in the mosque's and in the markets and on the roadsides.

We whacked the hornets' nest with a stick. Sure we could blame the hornets for the fact that people are getting stung, but that's not the whole story.

Moreover, it's really America's actions we discuss here. If someone were here proclaiming the wonderous merits of the Al-Qaeda or the Iraqi insurgency, I'd be happy to serve them their share of blame for the violence and chaos in Iraq. There's plenty to go around. But nobody does, so it's kind of pointless... On the other hand, we have a lot of discussion here over the pros and cons of various American actions in Iraq.

It is our enemy that is doing that. And they aren't doing it because we are being mean to the Iraqi people, it's because we are helping the Iraqi people.

And they hate us for our freedom, right? There are numerous reasons why people are fighting us in Iraq, and I doubt that fact that we're helping them is high on that list. It's difficult to fathom why anyone would be upset over being helped. Maybe some of what we perceive as help isn't perceived the same way there (sort of like when Hillary Clinton wanted to "help" Americans by taking their money and spending it on health care for them). It's easy to see why people would fight back against rule by outsiders. This has been one of the most regular causes of conflict and war in human history.

And the more the Iraqi people progress away from the oppressive rule of a dictator, the more the terrorists and former Baath party want to blow people up and hide.

The more we weaken them, the stronger they get? Are you saying they weren't trying before? That doesn't make much sense..

Terrorism isn't a winning strategy and it won't win the hearts and minds of these people in the end. All the anti-US propaganda in the world won't make up for the fact that the US is trying to help the Iraqi people and the Terrorists are killing them.

The insurgents don't need to win hearts and minds. They just need to make progress so slow, difficult, and costly that we pack up and go home (see Vietnam, Somalia, the Soviets in Afghanistan). Then they win. They only need the support of a small part of the population to stay in business. And their attacks are not entirely random. A majority of them are targetted at a) Americans, b) Iraqis working with Americans, c) Shiites, d) Kurds. Attacks on these targets will not erode their support base among Sunnis. We, on the other hand, do need to win hearts and minds. It's the classic counter-insurgency problem.

The President has asked for your patience, not for your blood or your sweat. He's asked that of his military. Being supportive would so much more help this war for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

He has my full support for staying in Iraq and rebuilding. I'm not one of the people calling for withdrawal or a timetable (which I think would be phenomenally stupid). On the other hand I'm not about to stop pointing out the stupid mistakes the President has made until he's ready to own up to them. This is a democracy. Elected leaders need to know there is a political price to be paid for incompetence. I don't need him to grovel on his knees. Just acknowledge that mistakes have been made and stop trying to blow sunshine up our asses. When he's honest with the American people, I'll shut up. Not before.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Where is Iraq today if the terrorists quit bombing?

Sectarian Civil War.

The President has asked for your patience, not for your blood or your sweat. He's asked that of his military.

Same thing. 1,700 American servicemen are dead. 15,000 have been injured. Many, many families and communities are touched by these tragedies. I think they deserve some straight talk from the Administration.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Sectarian Civil War..

I disagree, but we've gone round on that one before...

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Same thing. 1,700 American servicemen are dead. 15,000 have been injured. Many, many families and communities are touched by these tragedies. I think they deserve some straight talk from the Administration.

This I totally agree with. The administration has shown a complete lack of courage, politically and otherwise, to elucidate a vision for what the hell they're doing. They've got a chance to shape a new approach to global security and development, and they're letting it pass. They've decided to compensate for a lack of explanation by over-inflating simplistic patriotic rhetoric, and it's ultimately pretty empty, and inherently non-sensical, to the people bearing the load. Two of my best friends are over there and their primary objective is staying alive, and both of them have serious trouble measuring success by any other metric. They're just not being given a vision by their "leaders."

And not to split hairs (okay, I'm splitting hairs) but half of the 15,000 injured that you cite returned to full active duty within 72 hours. It's difficult to argue that the invasion and occupation has been a massive failure when it comes to minimizing American losses, but every loss is magnified tenfold when the people giving the orders can't give you a vision for why.

[SFL Cat]

Last week, before Reagan's departure to the ultimate "shining city" obliterated all other news coverage, a curious change in rhetoric began sweeping over the political landscape. Whereas Bush and his supporters often likened the fight against terrorism (and therefore Iraq) to fighting "evil", in a general "evil is bad" sort of way, the D-Day anniversary begged for new comparisons to the Second World War. Condi Rice and Donni Rumsfeld stepped up these comparisons earlier this year (especially as it related to reconstruction efforts), and Bush himself has echoed the arguments in recent speeches, including his Air Force Academy address last Wednesday.

Some of the parallels strain credulity, specifically with regards to Rumsfeld's observation that disgruntled post-SS officers caused problems similar to the current Saddam loyalists and Iraqi insurgents -- true to a point, but we're talking about a few isolated incidents in Germany versus almost daily fighting in so-called "post-war" Iraq. Incidents against U.S. forces were rare in Japan, too, although Japan had suffered so much near the end they were more demoralized than angry. (Well, that, and MacArthur's first order was to completely disarm the Japanese populace, so that probably helped, too.)

But many other comparisons end up in Bush's favor. Unlike Germany and Japan, for example, Iraq sits on oil reserves which will provide an enormous amount of wealth for the nation, and make it less dependent on foreign aid than the post-WWII axis. (It also helps that Saddam was deposed with a shocking minimum of collateral damage to the country.) As Minnesota congressman Gil Gutknecht has pointed out, "it took three years to get an independent central bank in Germany. In Iraq, it took two months. It took 14 months to get police established in Germany. In Iraq, it took two months. It took 14 months to get a cabinet in Germany. In Iraq, it took four months." Indeed, the incredible speed and success of this occupation make post-war Germany and Japan seem molasses-slow. Also more than after WWII, despite the pain of the insurgencies, the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly supportive of the U.S. efforts, repeatedly stating than the removal of Saddam was worth any subsequent hardship by a 2 to 1 margin (62% to 30%), and that Iraq will certainly be better off in five years than if the coalition hadn't acted by more than an 8 to 1 margin (67% to 8%). And one can expect those numbers to increase when the governing council has full sovereignty.

All those decrying why we should have the right to "force democracy" on other peoples (how's that for an oxymoron) should find me a person currently living in Japan who hates how it all worked out for them. Theirs was a greater cultural and political shift than is now being tried in Iraq (and had just as many naysayers worldwide claiming the nations' respective peoples just "couldn't culturally adjust" to democracy, which really is quite insulting when you think about it.) The plan for post-war Japan immediately included such foreign concepts as a woman's right to vote, the disarming of the nation's weapons (civilian and military), holding free elections, redistribution of land wealth, forming labor unions, free exercise of religion, open instruction in schools, and tons of other changes similar to what we've done in Iraq and that were if anything a lot more radical for the Japanese. The occupation and interim government of Japan was essentially run by one man, General MacArthur, in many ways much more "unilateral" than anything Bush has done in the past two years (though there was more worldwide support, albeit only vocal.) And this occupation lasted seven years.

Of course, it is easy to point out that, unlike Iraq, Japan did in fact personally attack us, at Pearl Harbor. Perhaps an ambitious ludicrosity commenter would say "ah, but these comparisons you make seem more in tune with our invasion, occupation, and rebuilding of Afghanistan, not Iraq." But consider where this argument would logically take you, a la Susan Sarandon: "Iraq didn't attack us on 9-11. Iraq may have been led by a madman bent on world domination, tried exercising too much 'breathing room' and assassinating a world leader, was accumulating more illegal weapons programs in defiance of international law, was brutalizing its own people and committing acts of genocide against the Kurdish people through mass extermination, but they hadn't directly attacked us so it was none of our business." It doesn't take a stretch to word-swap Germany for Iraq, Pearl Harbor for 9-11, and the Jews for the Kurds before you've just talked yourself out of attacking Hitler. Sure, Saddam was more of a 1939 Hitler than a 1943 Hitler, but remember the whole point of this "pre-emption" was that it's better to wage a little war now than suffer through a big war later.

And does anyone really wish we hadn't entered WWII a few years earlier?

link

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I agree with you, they [the media] have been derelect in their duty recently, with their focus on missing white women instead of the Downing Street Memo, and their so far ignoring of the fact that we are now negotiating with terrorists.

Be cautious, one of your liberal cohorts on another board smells a trap!!!!

We all know the Downing Street Memo is accurate. We should also realize that it represents sufficient legal grounds for impeachment of Bush (and usefully that would include his replacement, Cheney and subsequently replacement of the entire Bush Cabinet).

Still, since Democrats/Liberals/Progressives have no access or control over most American's primary source of news and information--television, and the Bush Administration and Republican Leadership both do have control over the media and don't want this memo publicized... Most Americans will never even hear about the Downing Street Memo, much less ever see/hear unbiased coverage of it. Congress knows, but Democrats are too weak to accomplish anything and would be effectively blocked by the majority if they ever managed to get something going.

There's one other concern, as I see it. This is all just too easy, too neat. Something of this magnitude would have seen unseen but severe efforts to suppress and discredit it. Given this uncharacteristic behavior, it seem something's not quite right here. Remember, it was probably a clever psy-ops action initiated by Karl Rove that arranged for a damning but uniquely discreditable set of documents describing Bush's embarassing national guard record to end up in the hands of CBS/Dan Rather. Therein too there was no protest--for a time. Everyone knew the contents of the documents was true, and even had independent verification including affidavits of people involved in the Texas Air National Guard. Even so, the mere fact that the documents could be shown to not be originals or photocopies thereof meant that the documents could not be relied upon. An interesting fact of human nature is that just because the documents weren't proper copies and regardless of the fact that they were almost certain to have been the supremely clever kind of false documents that included the truth of the originals verbatim, people immediately concluded it was an attempt to smear Bush and mentally threw out the baby with the bathwater. That is, since the docs weren't verifiable, their contents were assumed to be false (despite other solid evidence to the contrary). It was, rather, a well crafted public relations bomb, designed to immunize Bush from his prior record and from future attacks (everyone felt sorry for Bush being "falsely" attacked like that; so any future attacks--even with provable, verifiable true documents would be rejected out of hand), and to blow up in the face of CBS, 60 Minutes and Dan Rather (all of whom were hated by Conservatives, CBS for being fair and balanced, 60 Minutes for frequently exposing the truth, and Dan Rather for his harshe treatment of Richard Nixon long ago).

In other words, this might be a trap. If Democrats did rally around it, and press for impeachment... the Republicans would allow the fight to impede the functioning of the government and let Democrats get themselves deeply embroiled. Then, suddenly, "proof" that the Downing Street Memo is a forgery, nevermind that it is almost certainly the truth, perhaps a verbatim copy of a real report. Instantly, a large segment of the population would disbelieve the contents of the memo. The impeachment proceedings would be cancelled. Large numbers of the electorate would now be even more extremely unlikely to trust the judgement of Democrats, and even lay a serious case of blame upon Democrats for the cost, diversion and obstructionism that such a circumstance would have involved! We'd be blown out of the water with disasterous political results. Even if we had additional independent proof of the truth of the misdeeds of the Bush Administration we wouldn't be able to hold the process together. We would look like rabble rousers, seeking to destroy a president just because we don't like him and willing to obstruct the functioning of the government to get our way! We would certainly look the fool.

We must approach this with caution and perhaps try not to appear too eager. Yet it's important that the memo be brought to the attention of all Americans in order to begin to assail the rigid worldviews that are held by so many. They need to know that their blessed leader has misled and used them at great cost.

Man, this stuff is almost as good as all the conspiracy theories surrounding Bill Clinton!!!

[cartman]

A big part of the problem is our administration's insistence on having an "Iraqi people". Simply put, there is no such entity. Iraq as it now exists, is a very recent development that was wholly imposed by the British. A mapmaker simply drew some lines in when the area was under British rule and created a colonial area. There was no thought given to who actually lived there, and no care if they got along.

Iraq would be much better off, IMO, if the region was split into different countries based on the local ethnic groups, like it was for a thousand years, prior to the start of the 1900s. But due to most of the oil being in the Kurdish region, that ain't gonna happen.

It's one thing for a group of people to make the decision to join together to form a country, ala the US. It's another entirely to have a country imposed on non-cooperating groups of people and expect them to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya". A lot of the violence going on right now isn't so much anti-American as it is different factions fighting each other to try and gain the upper hand in the new government over their rival groups. Hitting the Americans is more a signal of overall strength rather than an anti-American bias. They are sending the message that if "we can strike successfully against the mighty Americans, what chance do you have against us"

[MrBigglesworth]

Also more than after WWII, despite the pain of the insurgencies, the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly supportive of the U.S. efforts, repeatedly stating than the removal of Saddam was worth any subsequent hardship by a 2 to 1 margin (62% to 30%), and that Iraq will certainly be better off in five years than if the coalition hadn't acted by more than an 8 to 1 margin (67% to 8%). And one can expect those numbers to increase when the governing council has full sovereignty.

If you want to talk Iraqi polls, a majority of them want us to leave. And helping the Iraqi people is all well and good, but that doesn't address whether or not the cost that we have to pay is too high.

It doesn't take a stretch to word-swap Germany for Iraq, Pearl Harbor for 9-11, and the Jews for the Kurds before you've just talked yourself out of attacking Hitler. Sure, Saddam was more of a 1939 Hitler than a 1943 Hitler...

The whole argument falls apart when you realize that Germany declared war on us (shortly after Pearl Harbor), not the other way around. In fact, many historians point to that as just another dumb move by Hitler, doubting that the US would have immediately gotten into the war in Europe if Hitler had not declared war.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Cartman

A big part of the problem is our administration's insistence on having an "Iraqi people". Simply put, there is no such entity. Iraq as it now exists, is a very recent development that was wholly imposed by the British. A mapmaker simply drew some lines in when the area was under British rule and created a colonial area. There was no thought given to who actually lived there, and no care if they got along.

Iraq would be much better off, IMO, if the region was split into different countries based on the local ethnic groups, like it was for a thousand years, prior to the start of the 1900s. But due to most of the oil being in the Kurdish region, that ain't gonna happen.

It's one thing for a group of people to make the decision to join together to form a country, ala the US. It's another entirely to have a country imposed on non-cooperating groups of people and expect them to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya". A lot of the violence going on right now isn't so much anti-American as it is different factions fighting each other to try and gain the upper hand in the new government over their rival groups. Hitting the Americans is more a signal of overall strength rather than an anti-American bias. They are sending the message that if "we can strike successfully against the mighty Americans, what chance do you have against us"

You might have a point if our troops were being hit only by Iraqi insurgents. However, with all the Syrians and Iranians running around I'm not buying it. The fact that nationalist factions of Iraqi insurgents have in some cases engaged in firefights against foreign terrorist elements might be a sign that some factions of these insurgents might be starting to think that the US could be the lesser of two evils.

Do I think everything will be roses and sunshine when we leave Iraq? Probably not. But then its not always roses and sunshine here in the good 'ol USofA either.

BTW, I do think the terrorist are trying to send a message to the Iraqi people. This is what happens to you if you cooperate with infidels. In the long run, I think this will backfire.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The whole argument falls apart when you realize that Germany declared war on us (shortly after Pearl Harbor), not the other way around. In fact, many historians point to that as just another dumb move by Hitler, doubting that the US would have immediately gotten into the war in Europe if Hitler had not declared war.

Well, you could make the case that Saddam had already redeclared hostilities against us by violating conditions of the Cease Fire Agreement that resulted from Desert Storm. We probably should have rolled over him the first time he fired on our fighter craft patrolling the NO FLY ZONE established by the UN.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

You might have a point if our troops were being hit only by Iraqi insurgents. However, with all the Syrians and Iranians running around I'm not buying it. The fact that nationalist factions of Iraqi insurgents have in some cases engaged in firefights against foreign terrorist elements might be a sign that some factions of these insurgents might be starting to think that the US could be the lesser of two evils.

Again, this goes back to the point that the borders in the countries of the Middle East are completely arbitrary, and did not exist prior to the colonization of the region by England and France. The majority of Syrians and Iranians (as well as Iraqis) are Shiite, and these most likely are the "foreign fighters" that are in Iraq. They are there to promote the Shiite cause, not a national cause.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

A big part of the problem is our administration's insistence on having an "Iraqi people". Simply put, there is no such entity. Iraq as it now exists, is a very recent development that was wholly imposed by the British. A mapmaker simply drew some lines in when the area was under British rule and created a colonial area. There was no thought given to who actually lived there, and no care if they got along.

Iraq would be much better off, IMO, if the region was split into different countries based on the local ethnic groups, like it was for a thousand years, prior to the start of the 1900s. But due to most of the oil being in the Kurdish region, that ain't gonna happen.

It's one thing for a group of people to make the decision to join together to form a country, ala the US. It's another entirely to have a country imposed on non-cooperating groups of people and expect them to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya". A lot of the violence going on right now isn't so much anti-American as it is different factions fighting each other to try and gain the upper hand in the new government over their rival groups. Hitting the Americans is more a signal of overall strength rather than an anti-American bias. They are sending the message that if "we can strike successfully against the mighty Americans, what chance do you have against us"

Yeah, I've run aggressive scenario's through my head that would offer a massive chunk of Shia territory to Iran, Kurdish territory to Turkey, Southern Shia territory to Kuwait and Saudi, western Iraq to Jordan, and leave the small middle as it's own nation of Iraq (Tikrit, Baghdad, Fallujah).

We all know the Turks and Iranian's would be better able to squash an insurgency by using the same tactics (blow shit up, ask questions later)--but I'm not so sure the Kuwaiti's, Saudi's, and Jordanian's have that kind of "technical expertise" without contracting it out.

The beauty of splitting the country and letting the neighbor reap the benefits is that the terrorists would have had a lot more arabs to kill than Americans. Killing other Arabs doesn't fit well into the prime-time scheduling of Al Jazeera.

Hell, maybe we should give the Iraqi people an ultimatum. Stand up and squash the insurgents yourself or 180 days from now we give your country to the Turks. That would scare me into doing the right thing!

BTW, I knew some Turkish soldiers in Ankara that were in their mountain divisions. They were begging me to talk to somebody to let the Turks train the US on how to track down terrorists in mountainous terrain. That was in September of 01. I thought it was a great idea, but sadly, who was I going to tell? So I told my wife....but sadly, she doesn't know Donald Rumsfeld.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by cartman

Again, this goes back to the point that the borders in the countries of the Middle East are completely arbitrary, and did not exist prior to the colonization of the region by England and France. The majority of Syrians and Iranians (as well as Iraqis) are Shiite, and these most likely are the "foreign fighters" that are in Iraq. They are there to promote the Shiite cause, not a national cause.

Perhaps not, but those boundaries have been set in place for generations now and as the recent unrest in Lebanon against Syria proves, sometimes nationalism outweighs ideology (in this case, the hatred of Israel).

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Dutch

BTW, I knew some Turkish soldiers in Ankara that were in their mountain divisions. They were begging me to talk to somebody to let the Turks train the US on how to track down terrorists in mountainous terrain. That was in September of 01. I thought it was a great idea, but sadly, who was I going to tell? So I told my wife....but sadly, she doesn't know Donald Rumsfeld.

Hoo boy, no way I'd start ANYTHING with the Turks unless I absoluuuuutely had to. Definitely NOT the people you want to have on your bad side.

[rexallllsc]

hxxp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4122040.stm

'New militant threat' from Iraq
Scene of a suicide attack in Baghdad
The report warns that veteran Iraqi militants may spread their methods
The insurgency in Iraq is creating a new type of Islamic militant who could go on to destabilise other countries, a leaked CIA report says.

The classified document says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of skills, from car bombings and assassinations to co-ordinated attacks.

It says these skills may make them more dangerous than fighters from Afghanistan in the 1980s and 1990s.

And the threat may grow when the Iraq insurgency ends and fighters disperse.

'Urban terrorism'

Militants could pose problems in their countries of origin, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan, but the report says countries further afield, including the US and the UK, could also be at risk.

Many recruits to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network trained and fought in Afghanistan, during the struggle against the Soviet-backed regime.

The broad conclusions of the report have been confirmed by an unnamed CIA official and are said to have been widely circulated in the intelligence community.

Earlier this year, the head of the CIA, Porter Goss, warned that unrest in Iraq was providing Islamist militants with training and contacts that could be used in new attacks abroad.

"Those jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism," he said.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

This I totally agree with. The administration has shown a complete lack of courage, politically and otherwise, to elucidate a vision for what the hell they're doing. They've got a chance to shape a new approach to global security and development, and they're letting it pass. They've decided to compensate for a lack of explanation by over-inflating simplistic patriotic rhetoric, and it's ultimately pretty empty, and inherently non-sensical, to the people bearing the load. Two of my best friends are over there and their primary objective is staying alive, and both of them have serious trouble measuring success by any other metric. They're just not being given a vision by their "leaders."

Wow, and here's me thinking I'd never agree with you on anything. I 100% agree with you here. Well said.

My brother's company already has the same mentality (stay alive at all costs), and they're not even in Iraq yet.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Perhaps not, but those boundaries have been set in place for generations now and as the recent unrest in Lebanon against Syria proves, sometimes nationalism outweighs ideology (in this case, the hatred of Israel).

Again, this goes back to religion. Lebanon is a different beast in the area, since it the population is not 90%+ Islamic. It is about 60% Islamic and 40% Christian. The unrest was more due to the Christians rebelling against the autocratic Islamic governing from Syria.

It has only been a few generations since the boundaries were put down, one at most two generations before the formation of the Israeli state. Israelies and Palestinians aren't getting along much better than any of the other religious factions in the Middle East.

My point is that there needs to be a serious re-evaluation of how the borders are drawn in the Middle East. The only thing keeping order in the region since the borders were arbitrarily created 100 or so years ago has been the use of force. First the colonial occupiers, then a succession of oppressive dictators in the various countries. You can't think that people that have hated each other for hundreds to thousands of years all of a sudden will band together to form a democracy. It is just not going to happen.

The closest example might be Europe, but they went through hundreds of years of constant major wars with each other before they've settled into the current stable and peaceful political state they are in.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

My point is that there needs to be a serious re-evaluation of how the borders are drawn in the Middle East.

By whom?

[SFL Cat]

By the UN, of course. The bigger the bribe, the wider your boundaries!!!

[Honolulu_Blue]

Did anyone catch the treatment of this issue on "The Daily Show" last night? It was spot on and hillarious, as per usual. You can usually find Daily Show segments on the web. I'd reccommend looking it up. Funny in that tragic sort of way.

[flere-imsaho]

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad & pathetic:

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." - VP Cheney, 5/31/05

"If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period, the throes of a revolution" - VP Cheney, 6/24/05

"throe: severe spasm of pain; "the throes of dying"; "the throes of childbirth" 2: hard or painful trouble or struggle; "a country in the throes of economic collapse" - dictionary.com

"last: Being, coming, or placed after all others; final" - dictionary.com

"Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years." - Sec. Def. Rumsfeld, 6/26/05

"We know where they (WMD) are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Sec Def. Rumsfeld, 3/30/2003

Amount of time U.S. forces in Iraq to date: 2 years.

"I don't remember whether that was on there, but certainly it was discussed." - Sec. Def. Rumsfeld, 6/26/05, asked if insurgency was on a list of "15 things that could go wrong by invading Iraq" that he presented to President Bush before the invasion.

"It is like running a marathon. You hit the wall at 21 miles or 22 miles. If you give up, then you lose the prospect for victory or success. We're not at the 21-mile mark yet, but we are heading for the wall. We need to work our way and fight our way through the wall. It is not going to be done without work and without sacrifice. And it is not going to be done without cost in blood and treasure." - Gen. Abazaid

Treasure?

Marathon: ~26 miles

So Rumsfeld says: 2/12 (or 2/6, 2/8, 2/10, covering all bases)
Abazaid says: 21/26

REPORTER: Mr. President, we were told that you planned to sharpen your focus on Iraq. Why did this become necessary? And given the recent surge in violence, do you agree with Vice President Dick Cheney's assessment that the insurgency is in its last throes?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Adam, I think about Iraq every day -- every single day -- because I understand we have troops in harm's way... [seconds later] And so, you know, I think about this every day -- every single day -- and will continue thinking about it, because I understand we've got kids in harm's way. - 6/20/2005

"Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan." - President Roosevelt, 12/8/41

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

REPORTER: Mr. President, we were told that you planned to sharpen your focus on Iraq. Why did this become necessary? And given the recent surge in violence, do you agree with Vice President Dick Cheney's assessment that the insurgency is in its last throes?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Adam, I think about Iraq every day -- every single day -- because I understand we have troops in harm's way... [seconds later] And so, you know, I think about this every day -- every single day -- and will continue

Is that a real quote?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Is that a real quote?

Yep. From his press conference when the two guys from the EU visited. Which was last week, I think.

Edit: Easy to google for: http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/s/afp/...h_050620191028

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

"I don't remember whether that was on there, but certainly it was discussed." - Sec. Def. Rumsfeld, 6/26/05, asked if insurgency was on a list of "15 things that could go wrong by invading Iraq" that he presented to President Bush before the invasion.

Considering the aftermath, you would think whether or not this was on the list would be burned into his mind.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Candidate George W. Bush 4/9/99

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

Originally Posted by Candidate George W. Bush 6/5/99

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

Originally Posted by President George W. Bush, 6/24/05

“It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.”

Nice to be so consistent in these matters.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

Nice to be so consistent in these matters.

Did you have a particular date in mind?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Did you have a particular date in mind?

Not my call. He said himself in the earlier statements (in regards to the troops in Kosovo) that it is important for the President to say how long the troops are going to be used. Now he is saying that doing something like that would only help the groups the troops are fighting.

Until politicians are held accountable for what they say campaigning versus once they get in office, the jaded view most people have of politicians is going to persist.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yep. From his press conference when the two guys from the EU visited. Which was last week, I think.

Edit: Easy to google for: http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/s/afp/...h_050620191028

Wow. He certainly has a way with words, doesn't he?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

Not my call. He said himself in the earlier statements (in regards to the troops in Kosovo) that it is important for the President to say how long the troops are going to be used. Now he is saying that doing something like that would only help the groups the troops are fighting.

Until politicians are held accountable for what they say campaigning versus once they get in office, the jaded view most people have of politicians is going to persist.

Okay, let me try again. Do you have a particular timeframe that you would not obliterate with negative criticism?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Okay, let me try again. Do you have a particular timeframe that you would not obliterate with negative criticism?

Umm... when have I ever indicated I would obliterate proposed timeframes? I have never made any kind of post referring to that at all. So I'm not sure what you were expecting.

I am trying to hold the Commander in Chief to the standards he set for himself while he was actively pursuing the position. When he was running for office, he set the bar that the President has the responsibility to publicly state how long he proposes to use the troops, and that said timeframe is necessary to determine final victory. Now he is advocating the exact opposite of that position.

[flere-imsaho]

Updates:

Baghdad's Mayor deposed by Armed Gunmen: I'm having a hard time understanding how this comes to pass. I also can't find follow-up, so if anyone can find a follow-up story, I'd appreciate it.

Two weeks from the end of his service contract, Guard member gets stop-lossed and eventually dies in Iraq.: Again, if we didn't have enough active troops to do the job, why did we invade? The Guard wasn't designed for this.

Rice says insurgents "losing steam": This just after 14 marines were killed in a roadside bomb, 6 marine snipers were killed in an ambush, and another marine was killed by a sniper, all in the space of a couple of days. Insurgents also managed to kill a key Sunni member of the committee drafting the constitution, which is due 8/15.

Key Shiites demand an autonomous Shiite in Oil-Rich S. Iraq: Yes, as part of the constitutional negotiations, with 4 days to go.

[Klinglerware]

Yeah, I was reading an article the other day about ethnic tensions in oil-rich Kirkuk. Anyway, it seems that discrimination is really widespread--post-invasion, ethnicities aren't hiring people of other ethnicities.

I wonder if a hiring quota policy will end up in the Iraqi constitution, along with other ironic tidbits such as universal health care and gun ban provisions that are already in the draft...

[flere-imsaho]

Bush Says Troop Levels in Iraq Will Stay Unchanged for Now

Various emphasis mine.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 11 - President Bush said today that there had been no decision on raising or lowering the number of American troops in Iraq, but he asserted that the United States would not betray the Iraqi people by withdrawing its forces too soon.

"No decision has been made yet," he said. "I know there's a lot of speculation and rumors about that."

Anyone else get the impression they're making it up as they go?

Noting that the United States had bolstered troop strength for the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr. Bush left open the possibility of future adjustments. But "pulling troops out prematurely will betray the Iraqis," he said, adding that progress was being made on training Iraqis to defend themselves.

"Oh, I know it's hard for some Americans to see that progress, but we are making progress," the president said at a news conference at his ranch in Crawford, Tex.

Translation: "Trust us, we know what we're doing."

Mr. Bush, who appeared with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said he was confident that an Iraqi constitution would be agreed upon by Monday, the target date.

Turning to Iraq's neighbor Iran, he signaled that the new Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would be granted a United States visa so that he could visit United Nations headquarters in New York City.

Mr. Bush said accusations by former hostages that Mr. Ahmadinejad was involved in the 1979 takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran were still being investigated. But, he noted that "we have an agreement with the United Nations to allow people to come to meet, and I suspect he will be here to meet at the United Nations."

Acknowledging the presence outside his ranch of Cindy Sheehan, a Californian whose son was killed in action in Iraq last year and who has been demanding a meeting with the president to present criticism of his policies, Mr. Bush said he sympathized with her, as he does with all Americans who have lost loved ones in Iraq, but that he believed that their sacrifices will ultimately be proved worthwhile.

"She feels strongly about her position, and she has every right in the world to say what she believes," Mr. Bush said. "This is America. She has a right to her position. And I've thought long and hard about her position."

But he did not address Ms. Sheehan's demands for a meeting to discuss her son. Ms. Sheehan, who met once previously with Mr. Bush after her son's death, has vowed to camp outside the ranch until his vacation ends later this month.

"I've heard her position from others, which is, get out of Iraq now," Mr. Bush said. "And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so."

Except that invading Iraq hasn't increased security in this country (or Iraq, for that matter). As for "laying the foundations of peace", I'd say the rising discord between Shiites & Sunnis puts the lie to that.

The president sounded relaxed but serious as he restated his position that "a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East" would be a deterrent to terrorists in the region, and that the United States and its allies in Iraq were on the right side of history.

"I know it's tough, and I know it's hard work," he said. "But America has done hard work before. And as a result of the hard work we have done before, we have laid the foundation for peace for future generations."

George W. Bush, fratboy, failed businessman and draft dodger, wouldn't know hard work if it hit him upside the head. If any of these chickenhawks knew people personally with their life on the line in Iraq, maybe they'd start seeing reality.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Except that invading Iraq hasn't increased security in this country

That's an absurd claim, given that Al-Qaeda hasn't attacked here successfully since we went into Afghanistan and then Iraq. The war is now being fought on their soil instead of ours.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

That's an absurd claim, given that Al-Qaeda hasn't attacked here successfully since we went into Afghanistan and then Iraq. The war is now being fought on their soil instead of ours.

London, Madrid, Casablanca, Bali, etc....

It's really only a matter of time unless we start making some actual improvements to homeland security.