Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
...Dux's points are overblown and show a lack of historical reference. Refugees after a major invasion? Civil unrest? Young men with guns far from home doing bad things? Thats what the down side of war is, was, and always shall be. I think we have limited those better than most have in the past.
...If you were an insurgent in Iraq, and you heard the leader of the US house of representatives talk about a retreat in so many words, and you knew that most like a member of her party would be president soon, what would you be thinking?
|
overblown?
Since you like to make comparisons to Germany and Japan.
How many US military deaths by insurgents were there in Germany and Japan after the cessation of the war ("mission accomplished") and during the period of US occupation of those countries?
Did Germany and/or Japan experience a 10% loss of population, mostly the middle class, as a result of sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing after the cessation of war ("mission accomplished") and during the period of US occupation?
But more importantly, you ignored the critical fact that success in Iraq is dependent on political reconciliation. Can you point to any progress made in the last year on the political front?
In fact, recent US policy shifts are making that less likely..like cutting deals and arming Sunni tribal leaders in western provinces to fight al queda (do you think these armed tribal leaders will be beholding to a national unity government or more likely building their own fiefdoms?) or like trying to force the Iraqi government to accept the American (Cheney) puppet, Chalabi, who has no support or credibility among Iraqis, into a greater leadership role.
Bush and Petraeus also claim great success in training Iraqi police and military. After three years of training (begun under Petraeus in mid-2004), why is it not time to turn the security of the country over to those "well trained" forces (with a very small US support role that shouldnt take 140,000+ US troops)....unless its not at the level that Bush/Petraeus claim (another lie?)
The question for me is not.."if I were an insurgent"..., but rather "if i were a member of the Iraqi government and I heard that leader of the US House of Representatives talked about redeploying the US troops to border security and targeting specific terrorist threats rather than serving as the police force for the country, and a member of her party might be president soon, my thinking would be...I guess we cant suck off the US tit much longer and we, as the Iraqi government better put our sectarian differences aside and get our shit together in a manner that begins to bring shiites, sunnis and kurds together for the good of the country.
But there is no evdience of that happening....
Iraqi leadership rift widens
What makes you think a continued US presence, at or near the current level, will lead to political progress?