Very fair question. Despite our mistakes, I'm not sure the situation is unwinnable. Finally, we are following tactics that offer a hope of victory. The iraqis have no love for al qaeda. They are working with our troops to root out foreign insurgents. Pulling out prematurely however, would create a vacuum that Iran would inevitably fill. I don't see a problem with keeping troops based in Iraq. We just need to make sure that they are not put in unreasonably dangerous situations. As the Iraqi forces become more capable, our troops should gradually pull back. Obama's plan to start immediate drawdowns of troops would just be an invitation to insurgents to wait it out. I don't see that as very smart.
So cut and run, and let the country dissolve into an all-out Sunni v.s. Shia civil war, with Iran pitching in to help Al-Sadr. Oh wait, that's happening already in certain areas, so we should just pull out and let the ENTIRE country just go to hell in a hand basket. Just fuck the whole country. Let them kill each other, and on a scale that will make Rwanda look like a quarrel between a couple of neighbors. Pathetic...
Ok, so you're tying a definition of victory to the elimination of Al-Qaeda as a force in Iraq. Fair enough. However, the question still remains - what about all the other countries where Al-Qaeda could/would be allowed to flourish? The fact that the U.S. hasn't had an attack on its soil since 9/11 isn't lost on me. However, I just don't see the U.S. being able to pursue this strategy (the one you seem to be imputing to it) everywhere in the world. Here's a question for you. As I understand it, the U.S. has changed the course of events in Iraq over the past 18 months by essentially cutting a deal with the militias who were formerly trying to kill them. They have made cash payments (big ones) to the fighters who dislike Al Qaeda and have told those fighters that they will be allowed to assume power when the U.S. leaves. Knowing what we know about the capricious nature of these people, are we really willing to believe that, once the U.S. is gone, they will stick to their word and pull in the same direction as the U.S., i.e. work to limit the effectiveness of those who would, either directly or indirectly, do harm to the U.S.? I personally have no faith whatsoever in that idea. Hap pointed out that if we leave now, the country may descend into a civil war that would make Rwanda look like a day at the beach. I assume this is a concern because it is assumed that in such a climate, forces inimical to the U.S. would flourish. That's about the only argument I can see for staying in the country, but if one takes a step back and looks at the longer term, I just don't see there being any possibility that the U.S. will be able to use the outcomes of this military effort, such as it is, to leverage any sort of permanent or even semi-permanent influence in the region, or over the forces that seek to do it harm, mainly because those forces are so geographically and idealogically diverse. Finally, inasmuch as Iran might fill that vacuum you spoke about, don't you think that if they have a desire to take such action, they will find a way to do it regardless if it's through Iraq or some other puppet? We might be best served dealing with Iran directly as opposed to making sure that they can't operate through others.
Every prediction by Cheney you heartily agreed with... http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=200572 You were both proven wrong... and why would you be right now with the prediction that the Iraq people can't protect themselves when all the previous predictions were wrong? Wrong and stupid, that's what you are... What a womanly hand wringing right wing drama queen... Five years of crying wolf, 4,000 American soldiers dead, tens of thousand of physically wounded American soldiers and psychologically damaged American soldiers by the needless failed Iraq war, billions wasted...and the brain impaired still fall for this fear mongering shit. Bunch o trained monkeys...
Very fair question. Despite our mistakes, I'm not sure the situation is unwinnable. After five years, I am not sure, but what the heck, my life ain't at risk, nor is my family's life. Finally, we are following tactics that offer a hope of victory. The iraqis have no love for al qaeda. However, if we leave they won't stand up and fight back. They are working with our troops to root out foreign insurgents. If we were to leave, they would quit fighting the insurgents and just surrender. Pulling out prematurely however, would create a vacuum that Iran would inevitably fill. (Of course, I agreed with all of Dick Cheney's wrong Iraq predictions, those predictions were dead wrong of course, but I never admit I am wrong. I learned that by listening to right wing radio. If you don't admit you are wrong, you never are.) I don't see a problem with keeping troops based in Iraq as long as they are not my family. We just need to make sure that they are not put in unreasonably dangerous situations. (Reasonably dangerous is cool, after all, I am not related to them and don't actually care if they bite it). As the Iraqi forces become more capable, our troops should gradually pull back. (Why I think they will miraculously become more capable if we stay longer is irrational of course, but listening to right wing radio will do that to a person.) Obama's plan to start immediate drawdowns of troops would just be an invitation to insurgents to wait it out. (I am scared to death of the insurgents. They get better training, and better funding than the Iraqi soldiers get, and the stupid promise of democracy doesn't motivate as well as the insurgent's plan.).
Mantra of the right wing - "cut and run" , it's easier quoting than thinking. Hey that could be Rush's new catch phrase "It's easier than thinking" He is so full of himself I can hear him now saying it and all his people laughing and following. The words cut and run have no meaning or basis in fact except to excite the sheep of the neocons and give them a battle cry.
You make a lot of points, and they are not unreasonable. Rather than dealing with each one, let me say that I see preventing Iraq, with its vast oil reserves, falling into the control of our enemies, whther Iran or al qaeda, as a vital US interest. It is reasonable to use our military to secure vital interests. It's not necessary for us to invade every country with an al qaeda presence, like Somalia, provided they don't pose a serious threat to the US. We do reserve the right to use military force against al qaeda and other terrorists, wherever they are found, and against the host country if they are sheltering them. As for the sheikhs in Iraq with whom we are now allied, I suggested doing somethng along these lines years ago. These are tribal societies, and that is the way things work. They have an interest in keeping order in their areas so that they can conduct commerce. Beyond denying al qaeda and other terrorists a safe haven, we don't really care what they do. Our leverage with them is twofold. We will provide them armaments and assistance, plus we will have a troop presence in iraq that could be turned on them if they get out of line. It would have been better if we had taken control of the oil industry from the beginning, so that we could control oil revenues, but we stupidly failed to do that. It is a messy situation, and no solution is going to be perfect. Pakistan is very worrisome, as is Iran. We made historic mistakes during the first and second oil crises in the '70's and when we allowed the mullahs to take over Iran. The result has been an almost unimaginable transfer of wealth from the west to these societies, wealth that has been used to fund the very terrorists we are fighting and the internaitonal islmist resurgence. It appears the only practicable way of extricating ourselves from this nightmare now is to become energy independent, but that is a pipe dream. Neither political party is prepared to take the steps that would be necessary. The alternative is to sit back and wait for revolution in Saudi Arabia, which will result in another Iran if we do nothing or another Iraq if we intervene.
Yes. There is just the small problem that the oil lies under the ground of a sovereign nation. Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible for the U.S. to invade any country that is not acting in concordance with what it deems to be its best interest. As I said, since Al Qaeda is not a nationalist movement but an idealogical one, spread around the globe, you had better ramp up your military manpower because you are going to need to invade a lot of countries. And unfortunately, invading sovereign nations creates a situation in which there is a lot of ill will towards the U.S., thus providing more fertile breeding ground for anti-U.S. Al Qaeda-type activity. A bit of vicious circle if you see what I mean.
I agreed with every prediction by Cheney? Since when? This is news to me. Of course, being the troll you are, you simply toss out unsubstantiated conjecture without a care in the world. Hello, shit-for-brains: YOU yourself stated in a previous post on this thread that they can't defend themselves!! : Come on, troll, at least be consistent with your pathetic "arguments." And if you are going to do a 180 and change your position mid-stream, which is a favorite tactic of trolls but in your case probably just a symptom of your schizophrenia, please post evidence that the Iraqi security forces are in fact capable of providing security if US forces should pull out. The verbal diarrhea of a small child. Please reengage this topic when you are able to form a coherent argument. It would be a first, but miracles occur on a daily basis so there's still hope for you.