Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dragonlich
Just one question here: when the inevitable civil war breaks out in Iraq, will you accept your responsibility?
IMO, pulling out now is the WORST the US could do. The overly used phrase "the terrorists will win" most certainly applies here, at least in the eyes of their supporters. The end result will be even more suffering, and the destruction of what little hope and freedom the Iraqis have.
(FYI, I would prefer a UN peace-keeping operation instead of the current US-led force. But that's not gonna happen.)
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
I think that that thinking is what lead to the mass slaughter of many South Vietnamese tribes after we left. I think that thinking is what caused the massacres of the tribes in Iraq following the infandata uprising after we left Saddam in power in the first place. I think that your suppor of pulling out tomarrow is severely lacking historical proof and flawed.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
i won't go so far as Ustwo and say that many in the West are in support of the terrorists... but i think it's quite obvious that many in the West aren't willing to support themselves.
|
None of your responses to my last post attempts to debate, refute, or counter any of the information that I used to back my point that it is time for our military to withdraw from Iraq.
How is it that Rumsfeld, who maintained that a U.S. force level of about 140,000 U.S. troops was adequate, even though there were still not enough troops to secure the six mile stretch of road to Baghdad airport, cannot now justify withdrawing any of them, when he states this:
Quote:
SEC. RUMSFELD: Last question.
Q Mr. Secretary, in an interview with the Associated Press, Iraq's foreign minister expressed concern that the U.S. may pull out before Iraqi forces are ready. I imagine you probably haven't read that interview yet. But what sort of assurances can you give to the Iraqi people, to the American people of what the bar is for when -- how do you know how ready the Iraqi forces will be? What are you looking for when you come up with these sorts of assessments?
SEC. RUMSFELD: It's interesting. One day, someone says that the -- they might stay longer than they're needed; and the other is they might leave before -- while they're still needed. And I suppose it's an imperfect world. The president has answered that question, repeatedly. He said we have a -- committed a great deal to this effort; 25 million people have been liberated, a transitional government is in place. Our desire is to assist the Iraqi people in fashioning Iraqi security forces that can assume responsibility for their security, and pass over responsibility for their security as rapidly as they're capable of assuming it.
<b>That process is well under way. We're now over 165,000 Iraqi security forces.</b> There are a number that are operating independently. There are a number that are operating semi-independently but need logistic or lift or other types of quick reaction force assistance.
And each day it gets better. When you ask, "How can you can you know," the important thing to realize is, it's their country. It's the Iraqi people's country, and they're going to have to provide for their own security.
|
The U.S. military will pull out of Iraq, eventually, and judging by what this U.S. executive and military/intelligence leadership has accomplished so far, the U.S. will pull out after a far greater number of non-combatants and U.S. troops are killed or wounded, and with the same, or possibly worse dismal set of results for the efforts, than if the troop pullout were to begin tomorrow.
The crux of the problem, is that, in addition to being untruthful and incompetent, the folks running our government and our military refuse to take the advice of anyone with an informed opinion, and the possibility of offers of better solutions, that disagrees with them, the discrediting of General Shinseki by Wolfowitz, et al, being the best example of this.
The vehement refusal of some participants here to consider and to react to the details and history of U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the purpose of adjusting their opinions in reaction to the progression of circumstances of the military presences in Iraq and Afghanistan, is not all that different from the description of the process described in the Downing Street memo, of the "Bush administration fixing the facts to match the policy".
Here is a fresh assessment of what some of you clamor for more of, in large part because you are incapable of even considering what you now regard as unthinkable, withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq without anyone believing that the "mission" has been accomplished. I need not worry that I will have to take some sort of responsibility as Dragonlich asks me to, for the "breakout of the inevitable civil war in Iraq". It is already a reality, although Bush and Rumsfeld will never tell you that, because then others would demand that they assume responsibility for triggering it.
I know that this report is from Newsweek, the magazine that published the true story of Koran desecration by U.S. jailers at Gitmo, but just muddled the now admitted details of how human excrement came to taint the muslim holy books. Consider that the reporter has been in Iraq for two years, far removed from the editorial decisions of the Koran story, and how his initial optimism was ground down during his time frame, by a series of missed U.S. opportunities and leadership, command, and training failures.
Quote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8101422/site/newsweek/
Good Intentions Gone Bad
NEWSWEEK's Baghdad bureau chief, departing after two years of war and American occupation, has a few final thoughts.
By Rod Nordland
Newsweek
June 13 issue - Two years ago I went to Iraq as an unabashed believer in toppling Saddam Hussein. I knew his regime well from previous visits; WMDs or no, ridding the world of Saddam would surely be for the best, and America's good intentions would carry the day. What went wrong? A lot, but the biggest turning point was the Abu Ghraib scandal. Since April 2004 the liberation of Iraq has become a desperate exercise in damage control. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib alienated a broad swath of the Iraqi public. On top of that, it didn't work. There is no evidence that all the mistreatment and humiliation saved a single American life or led to the capture of any major terrorist, despite claims by the military that the prison produced "actionable intelligence."
The most shocking thing about Abu Ghraib was not the behavior of U.S. troops, but the incompetence of their leaders. Against the conduct of the Lynndie Englands and the Charles Graners, I'll gladly set the honesty and courage of Specialist Joseph Darby, the young MP who reported the abuse. A few soldiers will always do bad things. That's why you need competent officers, who know what the men and women under their command are capable of—and make sure it doesn't happen.
Living and working in Iraq, it's hard not to succumb to despair. At last count America has pumped at least $7 billion into reconstruction projects, with little to show for it but the hostility of ordinary Iraqis, who still have an 18 percent unemployment rate. Most of the cash goes to U.S. contractors who spend much of it on personal security. Basic services like electricity, water and sewers still aren't up to prewar levels. Electricity is especially vital in a country where summer temperatures commonly reach 125 degrees Fahrenheit. Yet only 15 percent of Iraqis have reliable electrical service. In the capital, where it counts most, it's only 4 percent.
The most powerful army in human history can't even protect a two-mile stretch of road. The Airport Highway connects both the international airport and Baghdad's main American military base, Camp Victory, to the city center. At night U.S. troops secure the road for the use of dignitaries; they close it to traffic and shoot at any unauthorized vehicles. More troops and more helicopters could help make the whole country safer. Instead the Pentagon has been drawing down the number of helicopters. And America never deployed nearly enough soldiers. They couldn't stop the orgy of looting that followed Saddam's fall. Now their primary mission is self-defense at any cost—which only deepens Iraqis' resentment.
The four-square-mile Green Zone, the one place in Baghdad where foreigners are reasonably safe, could be a showcase of American values and abilities. Instead the American enclave is a trash-strewn wasteland of Mad Max-style fortifications. The traffic lights don't work because no one has bothered to fix them. The garbage rarely gets collected. Some of the worst ambassadors in U.S. history are the GIs at the Green Zone's checkpoints. They've repeatedly punched Iraqi ministers, accidentally shot at visiting dignitaries and behave (even on good days) with all the courtesy of nightclub bouncers—to Americans and Iraqis alike. Not that U.S. soldiers in Iraq have much to smile about. They're overworked, much ignored on the home front and widely despised in Iraq, with little to look forward to but the distant end of their tours—and in most cases, another tour soon to follow. Many are reservists who, when they get home, often face the wreckage of careers and family.
I can't say how it will end. Iraq now has an elected government, popular at least among Shiites and Kurds, who give it strong approval ratings. There's even some hope that the Sunni minority will join the constitutional process. Iraqi security forces continue to get better trained and equipped. But Iraqis have such a long way to go, and there are so many ways for things to get even worse. I'm not one of those who think America should pull out immediately. There's no real choice but to stay, probably for many years to come. The question isn't "When will America pull out?"; it's "How bad a mess can we afford to leave behind?" All I can say is this: last one out, please turn on the lights.
|
If ever there was a "no confidence" vote regarding the leadership of a military and the formulation and implementation of policy that the military is ordered to follow, the above article makes the case. I cannot believe that the Bush administration can continue to be trusted with the responsibility of occupying and maintaining order in Iraq, or of overseeing U.S. foreign policy and commanding and directing the U.S. military. It must take huge volumes of denial and "fixing of facts to make the catstrophe that is Iraq look in anyway positive, or defensible". This is a descritpion of a total failure of policy and of military administration.
Please, if you have documentation from reliable sources to counter the electrical production figures, or of the performance of the U.S. military regarding relations with the Iraqi people today, and of improvements in the state of security there, post it. Posting good news to counter the sober assessments contained in my posts would do more to bolster your arguments than the content currently offered in your posts.