We brought chaos to Iraq. We must help clean up the mess.

[Apollo11]

I have read Bush's speech and I have read a lot of the criticism here on DU and in other places (New York Times, London Guardian).

Let me first of all say that I agree with all of you who are saying we never should have invaded Iraq back in 2003. If only we could go back and change the past, then a lot of pointless deaths and unnecessary suffering could have been prevented.

But as things stand, it seems to me that we (the US and her allies) must accept responsibility for invading Iraq and bringing chaos to the streets of Baghdad.

Even if all of us here voted for Gore and Kerry, the American people as a whole allowed Bu$h-Cheney to take power, and we allowed them to invade Iraq.

The Iraqi people have elected their government and the vast majority of Iraqis (like all of us) want to live in a peaceful and stable country.

The Iraqi government has asked us to help them restore order to the streets of Baghdad. The United Nations has endorsed the current mission.

If our current military effort is not working, then Bush is right to consider sending back-up to support the Iraqi Army and the US troops already serving there.

What is the alternative strategy at this point? Admit defeat and bring all our troops home before St Valentine's Day? What would be the impact on the security situation for the people of Iraq? Can we be sure that "things can't get any worse"?

It's not easy for me to say this. But I am hoping that the President's plan works and that his revised strategy succeeds in reducing the level of violence in Iraq.

I never thought I would find myself in agreement with Senator Lieberman.

Probably I am in a very small minority here on DU ...

[demnan]

1. The problem is, I don't think sending more troops will work

Senator Webb has a plan that would begin immediately to make diplomatic efforts to end the war. But sending additional troops without a clear strategy to end the war is not going to help. Most of us here have a gut-renching desire to see the troops come home. But we don't want Iraq to erupt in chaos either.

Bush has failed to use diplomatic efforts to end this war. Until he does I refuse to accept that additional troops be deployed.

[NNN0LHI]

2. Are you going to enlist or encourage your children to enlist?

Would you put yourself or your loved ones under the command of the current madman in the WH.

Or do you want someone else to do the killing and dying?

Don

[Apollo11]

12. It's a fair question

But the only answer I can offer you is in my original post:

I agree with all of you who are saying we never should have invaded Iraq back in 2003. If only we could go back and change the past, then a lot of pointless deaths and unnecessary suffering could have been prevented.

If I could just add, a lot of American troops gave their lives to free western Europe in WW2 (and we know that Germany and Italy did not attack the USA). Maybe from the point of view of those soldiers' families - their lives were wasted. But from the point of view of people living in Europe - we should be grateful for their sacrifice.

[madokie]

49. but but they were attacked by a madman then too like the Iraqi today is

big difference

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. Maybe we should send General Honore

so he can tell everyone to putting the down the fucking guns and start handing out food and water?

The problem for Bush is all he knows how to do is kill people. He never sees any other option.

[Bluerthanblue]

45. YOURS is the only

kind of 'military action' that would have any hope of positive outcome. Food, water and medicines are the tools that will bring healing and peace-

You cannot pour gasoline on an inferno hoping it will extinguish it.

Violence and force will be met with more violence and force.

[Connie_Corleone]

4. It will not work. 20,000 troops aren't enough to stabilize anything.

Even a retired general on MSNBC said last night that this was just a political move by Bush.

Besides, we already surged troops at least 2 or 3 times and things just got worse.

The war is over. Bush lost it.

[Apollo11]

9. Well it's not really a "surge"

Given the size of the country, and the overall size of the US military, we are talking about a modest upscaling of the US military presence in Baghdad.

To me, what Bush said last night makes sense:

"America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence - and bring security to the people of Baghdad.

"This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them - five brigades - will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations.

"Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighbourhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs."

[Bluerthanblue]

47. you do realize that the plain english

way of saying what is planned in Baghdad is that Soldiers will go door-door having to harass the civilians who live there, making them prove they aren't "insurgents" and when they have established to their certainty that these people are not insurgents, then they will have to take up residence there, or put them under house arrest, to ensure that no one else 'moves in' or that the people who are there don't go somewhere else....

I mean, think about this- they say what they did wrong was to 'clear out insurgents' and move on- the change is that they won't MOVE ON- either that or they will destroy the homes so that no one can live there- think this through.... how many THOUSANDS of soldiers is it going to take to accomplish this, and what kind of real hope do we have that the minute the soldiers leave ( which they have to eventually) things won't go right back to the way they are now??

This is no "new" plan- this is no solution.

Yes, I agree with you, we screwed this up by going into this country- sadly, there is absolutely NOTHING we can to do fix it- short of getting our people and weapons out of their country, and trying to offer humanitarian aid from the outside---

We are OCCUPIERS. Unless we plan on a permanent presence in Iraq, the only positive thing we can do is get our unwelcome, asses out of there. And never EVER do something like this again.


Sometimes when you screw up, there is nothing you can DO to 'fix' it- short of leaving.

And acknowledging our guilt.

[Atman]

10. 20k gets us back to the levels we had last summer. Wasn't enough then.

Why does anyone think it will be enough NOW, when the situation is worse?

"Operation: Stall For 08" is underway. Is YOUR child worthy of the ultimate sacrifice -- trading his life for the republic's political campaign? Jesus, Bush is mad man, plain and simple.

.

[William769]

5. It's safe to say this statement is correct

"Probably I am in a very small minority here on DU".

I use to think we needed to clean up the mess in Iraq that we made, not anymore. Let the U.N go in and do it & then they can send us the bill for our mess.

American presence in Iraq is only fueling the fire. I don't want them out by St Valentine's Day, I want them out now!

[ChrisCat]

23. This is the only solution I see too.

We are not accomplishing anything by being there, except causing more grief.

[shadowknows69]

6. Agree completely

Restorations must be made. Still nothing is going to get any better while we have one troop there. The main fuck up in all of this is that we became occupiers after we were liberators.

[heavylynn]

7. How long before the US become like N. Korea where the military becomes higest paid

along with the politicians while the rest of the people, the ordinary people, teachers, doctors, laborers and such, become the starving poor masses? We are building up our military with high bonuses and high tech weapontry at phenominal costs while robbing our social safety net while we police the world and making new enemies that will require further build up of the military.

[mmonk]

8. The lie of countries that invade others unprovoked

and set up a new government is that their presence there is always noble and in the best interest of the country that was invaded and that staying there will "stabilize" the country.

[MadHound]

11. Another failed student of history

Don't you get it yet? Don't you understand? Have you not studied your history?

We cannot win this war, no matter what your definition of winning is. We cannot restore order to Iraq because we are the chaos that is driving the madness in that country. No matter what we do, no matter how much money, how many men we throw at this problem, it is all going to be for naught. This is because the Iraqi people will consider anything we touch, government, political institutions, etc all to be illegit and illegal because it was sponsored and contaminated by us. And as soon as we leave, the Iraqi people will tear it all down. Yes, this will probably involve a civil war, that is inevitable. But that is something that we can't control nor prevent, because our very presence is the goad that this driving this madness.

The best thing for the Iraqi people and their country is for the US to march all of our soldiers onto ships, load up all of our equipment, and get the hell out of there. Yes, we have absolutely got to pay reparations to the Iraqis for our mistakes and our destructions. And we have got to beg, yes beg both the UN and Iraq's neighbors, including Iran, to help settle Iraq. But as long as our troops are in the country, as long as both our government and private US corporations are raiding Iraqi resources, there will never be peace in that country. Unless you wish to call the silence of the dead peace.

The only way out of this mess is for us to leave. The longer we stay, the longer the carnage continues.

[Apollo11]

18. Most of the killing is inter-ethnic

Iraq is not a simple textbook case of an occupied nation resisting an occupying force.

It is a complex situation where you have 3 different religious/ethnic groups and groups of armed fanatics motivated by racial hatred. You can compare the situation with that in Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. Sometimes in cases like this you need some outside help to build a stable multi-ethnic government that can create the conditions for an inclusive society based on equality and human rights.

But I agree with you that what we have done during the past 4 years has not given the Iraqi people the best possible start along the road to a peaceful and stable democracy.

[RethugAssKicker]

43. "best possible start" ????

The Iraqis were doing fine before we invaded.

Sunnis and Shiites were intermarried at almost 40%.

There was no major "racial hatred" (you really mean ethnic, don't you?)

you sound as though we are there to help them, but those backward brown people just can't get their
act together.!!!.

Typical arrogant American revisionism

[Apollo11]

46. doing fine under Saddam?

I am not satisfied that we were right to invade Iraq in 2003. It was not a serious threat to us or anyone else.

But I don't hold any illusions about what life was like in Iraq before 2003.

"The Iraqis were doing fine before we invaded." - I find hard to believe.

But of course in many ways the situation today is worse than it was before we invaded.

I'm not saying it's not a mess. I am saying that we created the mess.

Let's help the Iraqis clean it up, if that's what they want us to do.

[me b zola]

53. I wonder what sparked the intra-ethnic killing?

‘The Salvador Option’
The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq

AP
Nuns pray over the bodies of four American sisters killed by the military in El Salvador in 1980

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
Newsweek
Updated: 5:59 p.m. PT Jan 14, 2005

Jan. 8 - What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November’s operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency—as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time—than in spreading it out.

Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras. There is no evidence, however, that Negroponte knew anything about the Salvadoran death squads or the Iran-Contra scandal at the time. The Iraq ambassador, in a phone call to NEWSWEEK on Jan. 10, said he was not involved in military strategy in Iraq. He called the insertion of his name into this report "utterly gratuitous.")

Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK.


~more @ link~
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek

[MadHound]

59. And an ongoing American presence is going to help this situation how, exactly?

Are we going to play favorites? Promote one group at the expense of others? Not a good recipie for success when you favor one group over the other. Or will we try to be an honest broker, favoring no group? Sorry, but at the point the words "honest" and "American" ring hollow in the ears of the Iraqi people. Sure, we can put forth such an effort, but if the populace does not and will not trust us, such an effort is all for naught. Or will we try the Saddam option, coming down so hard and heavy on everybody that nobody dares to say boo? Bad, bad move there, being the iron fisted tyrant.

There is absolutely nothing that American forces can do in that region to build a stable, multi-ethnic government. We have no credibility, we are viewed by all sides as a homicidal, thieving, interloper. Nobody in the region trusts us, nor will they will cooperate with us. At best, they will suffer our presence grudgingly, all the while waiting for the day when, sooner or later we leave, and they can settle matters amongst themselves, as any sovereign nation has the right to do, even if they do so badly.

And quite frankly we cannot afford to stay in Iraq. Our country is bankrupt, in debt to the tune of 8.6 trillion dollars. To keep pouring money down this rathole is to consign the US to the same fate experienced by the USSR and their Afghan debacle. We will have a complete and total economic collapse, followed by chaos and death. Is that what you want for your country? Because that is what our ongoing presence in Iraq will deliver.

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different result every time. The US has been collectively engaged in this insanity for the past four years almost. Don't you think it is time that we regained our collective sanity? The only way to do so is to cease our direct military involvement in Iraq.

[RethugAssKicker]

40. AMEN !!!

[fedupinBushcountry]

13. You don't clean up the mess

by creating a bigger mess.

[Junkdrawer]

14. Yep. n/t

[ewagner]

15. I'm trying to mentally segment the problem

It's hard enough to get past the outrage that I feel that we went in there and created this mess in the first place but trying to define and isolate the problem (and consequently the solutions) is almost impossible.

Yes. The pResident is right that a "failed state" status for Iraq is dangerous. So the first problem/goal must be to keep Iraq from becoming a failed state and another Afghanistan. (which is another problem we're going to have to face....soon)

The question is just how, exactly, can that be done?

The Shiia are suppressing the Sunni.
The Sunni believe (rightly or wrongly) that we (USA ) are helping the Shiia suppress them.
A few (maybe 5%) of the total fighters are foreign fighters stirring the crap
Iran is supporting Al Sadr and his militia
Al Sadr's militia is propping up Maliki's government.

There are a lot of moving pieces here and I have no clue how to put them all together.

Now, just a short rant.

That f-ing Bush comes before us and cries that Iraq is too dangerous to leave....

that SOB is truly like the child who murders his parents and then begs the court for mercy because he' an orphan.

Even if the SOB is right about the danger of a failed state, he needs to be punished for creating this mess in the first place. He needs to be driven from office in disgrace and banished to his spidey-hole in Crawford forever.

(/rant)

[trumad]

16. OK---then if that doesn't work... then what?

How long should we stay? 6 months... 1 year...10?

You just don't get it do you? So-called smarter fellows have been saying we need 6 months more two years ago.

Oh---and let me say... a minority consists of a couple of people... No...you're by yourself.

[Apollo11]

19. I'm not afraid to stand alone

As a kid, my favorite fable was "The Emperor's New Clothes" :)

[William769]

26. Bush isn't afraid to stand alone either.

Look where thats gotten us. :eyes:

[trumad]

27. Standing alone on the graves of dead GI's

you're so fucking courageous.

[Apollo11]

31. I didn't send any soldiers to Iraq

But we have been occupying the country for 4 years already!

Except the difference is that now we are there with a UN mandate and at the invitation of a government elected by the people of Iraq.

If US troops need more body armor - I say we should send it.

If US troops need some more back-up - I say we should sent it.

The human and financial cost is great, but the time to point that out was before we invaded Iraq (when folks like Kerry, Edwards and Clinton voted to give Bush the green light).

But like I already said - that was then but this is now.

The President of the US has to make decisions based on the situation we find ourselves in today. This would be the case even if both Bu$h and Cheney were impeached this afternoon (I wish!), and Nancy Pelosi became President tomorrow.

[Bluerthanblue]

50. why are you still trying

to straighten the Emperor's tie?

He's naked Apollo- you see that, and you don't like it, but tweaking his imaginary outfit isn't going to cover up his nudity.

He has to clothe himself.

As much as we try, he'll continue to struggle against us forcing our will on him.

And while you may FEEL alone here-
You aren't 'standing alone' Apollo, you are standing with the Emperor, and trying to envision the clothes he is still convinced he is wearing.

It is hard not to be an enabler- especially when facing the truth makes us feel, regret, sorrow, guilt and anger.

[seabeyond]

17. what IF ... we cannot clean up. to say we MUST clean up, isnt going to make it happen

what IF we stay for 50 yrs and still we cannot clean it up.

this is the stupid, we MUST win. just cause you say you must win doesnt mean there is ever the possiblity of winning. we must clean up. what is that. i do not understand this attitude. at all cost? we must clean up. spend all our resources, all our troops lives, start a draft to use up our youth for this MUST win. vietnam was a must win. never happened. afghanistan was a decade long must win for russia. never happened.

do you get that because you say it, doesnt mean it will ever happen. then what?

because i really do not understand this thinking. do you just not look at all sides so you can leave it at we MUST clean up

[Az]

20. A man breaks into your house and ransacks the place

He stays for quite a while. You keep telling him to leave and he keeps ransacking the place. He even kills your mom. After a few years of this he finally starts to realize that you are not happy to see him there. He decides to stay and help fix things. Would your really want him to stick around after killing your mom and destroying your house for four years?

The Iraqi's do not want us there. They do not want the government we are pushing on them. They want us gone and they want their country back. Not under our terms. Not under any terms. There is no fixing this.

We Screwed Up When We Attacked Them

The only way to fix this is to go back in time and with the funding George has given to science thats not happening any time soon.

[Apollo11]

22. Yes we did screw up - very badly

But that was then and this is now.

Now - I'm not happy about you comparing my mom with Saddam Hussein ...

But on the substantive point I don't understand how the Iraqi's are supposed to get a government they want, except by holding fair elections and respecting the results.

If only in the USA we could manage that part (holding fair elections and respecting the results) then of course Bu$h-Cheney would never have taken power back in 2001 ...

[Az]

34. They don't want fair elections

They want their leaders in charge. That is a major difference.

Its a question of trust. We trust our political system. We fought for it over 200 years ago and have struggled to make it what it is. We trust it (even is some are still wary of it).

But the culture of Iraq is dominated by religious fundamental mindsets. Religious leaders present the truth and all who disagree with it are wrong. More than wrong they are evil. We are trying to foist upon them a system of government that in their view tolerates and even embraces evil. You can imagine how this might be seen as a bit of a roadblock.

We did not come to our consensus form of government overnight. We have a long and bloody history of various sorts of political systems that tried to force the "right" view on the people. A lot of people died. A lot of blood was shed. This is how societies learn sometimes. Over time it became clear that even if you believed you beliefs were true you had to abide with others who had different views and a system of governance had to be formed with that understanding. Its called a social contract.

Even in America we have problems with the social contract. Our fundamentalists have severed their ties with the social contract and placed their trust in their god. Thus we have a culture war going on in America right now. They do not trust in the consensus process of trusting others and are attempting to force their views on others through legal means.

The Iraqi's are not interested in elections. They know who should be the leader. And they will not accept anything less. For now.

[Apollo11]

35. Democrats for democracy

"The Iraqi's are not interested in elections. They know who should be the leader."

What about the 12 million Iraqis who risked their lives to go and vote in 2005?

[Az]

41. That was the system handed to them

It was not the system they fought and struggled for personally.

And yes there are many Iraqi's that do get democracy. But their culture is still dominated by tribal mindsets rather than national mindsets.

There are so many issues that they have to go through before a democratic system has a chance to work that is frightening. And yet Bushco has sold the world on the idea that Democracy works for everyone NOW.

Take justice as an example. Here in the west we defer our sense of justice to our society. That is when someone does us harm we look to the society to set the issue right. To dispense with justice.

But in Arab cultures the sense of personal justice still holds dominance. Someone does you harm and you have a personal responsibility to see to it that justice is served. A government punishing them does not alleviate you of your responsibility of delivering justice to them.

It is things such as this that are major obsticles in bringing Iraq into the family of democratic nations. Trust in a nation is not easily built. It is not something you can just build into the people like you can do with buildings.

Its about culture. Any system of governance we foist upon them is going to be of our culture. And it will not take with them. Because it is not of theirs. Democracy of all political systems requires that the people embrace it on their own. Failure to incorporate this inevitably leads to tin pot dictators that use the initial elections to put themself in power and then change the rules to fit their needs. And because the people that elected him in the first place believe he is supposed to be in charge they will not blink when he changes the rules. Because those are the rules they think should be in place anyway.

[Ganja Ninja]

21. Wrong.

We did create a mess but all we can do is prolong the problem not clean it up. Expecting us to solve Iraq's problems is like expecting Israel to solve the political squabbles between the Palestinians. We're the problem and we need to admit it and leave so there is one less excuse for Iraqi's to kill each other. They can solve their differences without any further guidance from us. I'm sure they've had enough of that.

[Apollo11]

24. What the Brits are saying

Statement from the British Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett (who let me remind you has been elected many times as a Labour Party member of the House of Commons):

"The announcement President Bush has made and the agreement and back up from the Iraq Government and from Prime Minister Maliki shows that both are determined to try to come to grips with what's unquestionably a difficult situation, particularly in Baghdad. We welcome that and we hope that this joint effort to resolve this very difficult security situation, which is undermining efforts to put other things right in Iraq, will indeed succeed."

So at least I have Lieberman and the Brits with me on this one ...

[moondust]

25. As they withdraw 3000 troops.

But it makes a great-sounding speech!

[Apollo11]

29. That is unconfirmed speculation

JOURNALIST:
Once that hand over has taken place to, to the Iraqi troops is it then possible that we will start seeing troop reductions, British troops coming home from Basra to the United Kingdom?

MARGARET BECKETT:
We've said for quite some considerable time that we are following a process whereby we tackle the security situation, where we do a great deal to try to put in place improved infrastructure, projects on the ground in Basra, and then we are progressively handing over responsibility to Iraqi forces and to Iraqi police. That is continuing. It's always been the case that we will make our own judgements and our decisions depending on the progress of that series and sequence of events, and that has not changed.

JOURNALIST:
Foreign Secretary can you confirm a Daily Telegraph report today saying that Britain plans to withdraw almost three thousand troops by the end of May?

MARGARET BECKETT:
No, again nothing has changed from what we have said in the past. We are under way with a process of hand over as the security situation improves, as the situation on the ground improves. We will make our judgements and our decisions depending on the progress of those events. That was the case in the past; it's the case now. The Telegraph may speculate about timing and so on but it does depend on how things continue to go in Basra.

http://www.fco.gov.uk

[trumad]

28. No--you have Lieberman and the poodle Tony Blair.

WOW! Now thats some credibility.

[Apollo11]

30. and the New York Times!

at least there is that small part in today's Editorial:
"the United States has a moral obligation to stay in Iraq as long as there is a chance to mitigate the damage that a quick withdrawal might cause"

I think Al Gore has said similar things in the recent past, but like I said, I don't necessarily form my own opinions based on what others are saying ...

[CJCRANE]

32. Bush does NOT want to clean up the mess.

He wants more mess.

If he had wanted to depose Saddam swiflty and efficiently and impose democracry he would have sent in 500,000 troops, sealed the borders and the ammo dumps and start with a national political conference straightaway.

So then you have to ask:

why did he -
leave the borders open...
the ammo dumps unsecured...
use troop levels too low to maintain order...
disband the Iraqi army, police force and civil service...?

[Apollo11]

36. Maybe because Rumsfeld is an idiot?

But it's just a theory ...

[CJCRANE]

42. Who knows.

The trouble with the neocons is that what they think, what they say and what they do are three separate things that don't seem to match up.

(Which leads to me to believe that they're lying most of the time and that we can never know their true motives or intentions).

[Norquist Nemesis]

33. Here's what I don't get

What guarantees do we have that Iraq would be our staunch ally even if it became a bloomed, full fledged democracy? We (rather, Bushetal) has a deep faith that our 'help' in Iraq is going to give us something of a little brother that will stand with us in the Middle East. It's a false assumption.

If we tried to overthrow Iran, Iraq would not be on our side. They've already made it clear they will stand with Iran if that happens and I don't see that position changing. Bush is seriously underestimating the relationships of that area if he thinks they will stick with us. It would be deja vu all over again for any Iraqis old enough to remember how America changes its mind.

For the moment we are supporting Shia: The same 'side' as the Iranians. Now, if we were to begin overt military operations in Iran, Iraq's going to be a good next door neighbor.

[Apollo11]

37. I agree with you

Look at all the democracies in Latin America electing governments that refuse to accept US domination of the western hemisphere.

That's why I think democracy - letting people choose their own governments and make their own decisions (also control their own natural resources!) - is a good thing.

[dogday]

38. You really think by sending these troops we

will clean up the mess?

We will make more mess, and more death, and more blood, and nothing will be resolved...

Instead of the civil war continuing at status quo, this will indeed ratchet up the war, no help at all...

[RethugAssKicker]

39. Slap yourself , then take a cold shower.... that should wake you up

..

Bush's plan is an escalation plan. It will result in only more deaths of innocenct people.

We should apologize to the Iraqi people and get the fuck out. Our presence is what is driving the
violence.!!!!

And, the Iraqi Govt is just an American puppet government!!!... ANd that is the way it is
seen by the IRAQI people.... You can not change that!!

We are murderers!.. plain and simple... the answer is NOT to murder more !!

[sinkingfeeling]

44. You are in a very small minority. This is no plan to end violence, but to continue to increase it.

Think about it. If they go door to door, grabbing people from their homes, ransacking them looking for weapons, shooting whenever they feel threatened, calling in bombing raids, etc, do you actually believe Iraqis will stop trying to kill US troops and each other? If you were a Sunni, involved in the insurgency, and Shiites and Americans did this to you, what would you do? If you were a Shiite and your Iraqi president ally started to target you, what would you do?

Escalation failed in Viet Nam, but it was tried over and over again. What was gained by it? In the end, just more death and destruction. The end result was the same as it would have been if America had left 8 years earlier.

[Strawman]

48. Are you in the US military?

If not, feel free to pitch in and enlist if you think a troop surge will solve the problem.

[Apollo11]

51. Will think about it

I'm not certain that admitting defeat and heading home would be the best possible outcome for the men and women in the US military.

If you have chosen to serve in the military, you probably want most of your missions to end successfully.

Unless you think the US Army slogan should be "When the going gets tough, we get the hell out!"

[Strawman]

52. If this war has taught us anything it's that sometimes a military "solution"

to a bad situation can actually make things worse. If we stay there we will keep making things worse.

Honestly, I hope you do not enlist. I hope you do not believe someone like President Bush. He has been wrong all along, why is there any reason to believe that he is right now?

He is just covering his ass. That's all he cares about. If he honestly believed that a troop surge were the only way to avoid dire consequences, why isn't he reinstating the draft and sending 500,000 troops to Iraq? Why can't he or his secretary of state persuade any other nations to contribute troops to such a vital effort that is so critical to collective security and such a sound humanitarian mission?

[Bluerthanblue]

54. sometimes,

the best course of action, is to stop taking action.

Sometimes the BEST thing anyone can do is to admit NOT being 'able to solve' the problem and stop making things worse in an effort to save 'face'.

[kid a]

55. I protested this war in the streets

I protested until blisters were on m y feet.
I send letters via mail, email, calls, etc.

The man who is responsible for this mess should be fired!!!
FIRED!!!
He is not the person to make any more decisions on IRAQ or any other foreign policy.

Get out of the way mr bush...then lets do what it takes to end the death and destruction.

[BluePatriot]

56. My two cents

I find myself at a loss on how to proceed given the current reality on the ground. I was vehemently against going there in the first place because I knew this would happen...so, I tend to be in the camp that while Bush's plan will be ineffective, any other actions would be also "wrong" in some way, because we are essentially so screwed. I will listen to everyone's POV because I believe no solution in the region will come without heavy costs.

So, I listened to the speech...and was vaguely surprised at its detailed nature, given his history of "speechifying." Some of the inaccuracies in it will definitely go over Joe Public's head. I think it's a "stall for time" non-plan that puts a new set of soldiers at risk. Embedding one American brigade to every Iraqi division? My god, that's a 4 or 5 Iraqi to 1 ratio, what if they decide to "forcibly" evict us? POOR strategy. Changing the rules of engagement? Code for "let's break any and all rules of war and get away with it." Even announcing that Iran is providing material aid in the region...while probably true, sends chills down my spine, b/c it's just an excuse to escalate if you bother to put it in a speech to the nation...All in all the entire experience made me numbly shake my head. I have no trust in anyone to rein this guy in before we see nukes go off somewhere. I hope Congress can find a solution.

[porphyrian]

57. Not one American needs to be on Iraqi soil to honor that responsibility.

Yes, we do need to clean up the mess we made. We can pay the Iraqis to do it, along with whatever Muslim allies are necessary to keep the peace while they do so. Our presence is not wanted there, and it is only making the situation worse, not better. All Americans out of Iraq now.

[maxsolomon]

58. we brought chaos to vietnam, we must stay & clean up the mess

that worked out great, didn't it?

when you lose, you leave. think napoleon's march on moscow.

the civil war in iraq is going to happen. partition is going to happen. the humanitarian disaster is already happening. whatever will 'fix' iraq, it isn't our fucking clueless military & civilian administration. we get out, its not just al queda & the insurgents who have won - its arabs & islam - they've formed their identity around hating us & israel. psychologically, its the best thing that could happen to them.

once the great satan is defeated, they are going to turn the ME into a garden, right? it will all be so classy, like the UAE.



no. after a short period of rejoicing, they're going to turn on each other. and once our oil addiction is broken (inevitable) they've got nothing we want. bring back the ottomans - they knew how to run an empire in the ME!

and oceans (and competent border policies) DO protect us.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. But you're not willing to enlist yourself, eh?

Yeah, I'll take your arguments under consideration.

:eyes:

[otohara]

61. Vietnam Is A Vacation Place Now

for American's. How on earth were they able to pull that off with out our interference?

[Bandit]

62. They have been wrong on every single issue to date

Why would you possibly think they are right now? Why would you give any credibility to those that have demonstrated they have none? They are known and acknowledged LIARS

[riderinthestorm]

63. This conflict isn't about Iraq anymore, it's a regional problem. Clearly you don't understand that

or you wouldn't be proposing adding more troops (beyond the ludicrisy of believing that 20,000 extra troops are sufficient to accomplish absolutely anything of value).

This has morphed into a conflict between the Shias (Iran +), Sunnis (Saudis +), Kurds and by extension the Turks with a little Al Qaeda thrown into the mix. Extra US troops will never solve this mess now - we need to get the entire region involved in figuring out what to do about Iraq, and calming the situation, or we will never see any kind of stability there.

US troops are now in the middle of a wider regional civil war being played out in Baghdad, and our presence gives all of these different groups "cover" to attack, sabotage and inflame - each other as well as our troops.

It is also proving to be the best training ground for terrorists, bar none, with all of the ramifications for western security against terrorists at stake.

All we are doing by staying there is ensuring this conflict will NEVER end as well as training terrorists. We MUST get out to even begin to get to work on reparations, if it's even possible at this point.

[Apollo11]

64. Thanx for your feedback

And thanx everyone who took the time and trouble to post.

I have read all your posts and will keep my opinions under constant review.

What's clear to me is that there is no perfect solution at this point in time.

[uppityperson]

65. If someone rapes me and I get pregnant, must they stay to help raise the child?

The Iraqi people have asked us to leave. Get a true multi-national force together, work WITH the people, and get the USA the hell out.

[Larry Allen]

66. Resist this urge to "fix" things.

Resist this urge to "fix" things. It is just not politically possible. The democratic controlled congress has the power (but not the will) to end this genocide. But they don't have enough leverage to influence the conduct of the "war" to the point of bringing about success. The descent into civil war and chaos, the failed state, are part and parcel of occupation policy. In the end it all comes down to 30 year oil leases and permanent military bases. Our current military effort is working perfectly from Bush's point of view.

The Iraqi people elected a parliment, not a government. It took 3 1/2 months to form a "government" acceptable to the occupation forces. Bush, in his speech, gave the Maliki government a limited amount of time to fix things in Baghdad. Or else what? Apparently this "democratically" elected government can be dispensed with at Bush's whim.

I don't know what you mean by defeat or admitting defeat. Bush never will admit defeat. His library is starting a decades long project to rewrite history. Nearly everyone else has already admitted defeat. They are forced to because they don't "get it". They imagined or fell for a series of noble causes used to justify an enterprise that was corrupt at its very core from its inception and remains so today. Nothing has changed in this respect.

"Well we're there" is a more idiotic and ridiculous casus belli than imagined weapons of mass destruction. You will admit that the American people were deceived by huge stockpiles of nerve gas and anthrax, a nuclear bomb making program, uranium puchases from africa, mobile weapons labs, a fleet of drones aimed at American cities, mobile biological weapons labs, collaboration with al queda on 9/11, support for global terrorism, throwing out weapons inspectors, mushroom clouds on the horizen, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum.

But what about "rebuilding Iraq", "dead enders and terrorists", "winning hearts and minds", "preventing civil war and chaos", and "regional stability"? What about "promoting democracy", "a unified iraq", "a shining example for the region", a "U.S. ally". These lies are more insideous than the original set, and your keep on believing them. That is because you continue to project a modicum of good will, rationality and concern for U.S. interests on these murderous, lieing, profiteering, treasonous thugs.

Take "rebuilding Iraq". You could employ literally hundreds upon hundreds of Iraqis for every single war profiteering contractor in Iraq. The U.S. treasury is charged over a million dollars per contractor and there are 100,000 contractors. Iraq could have had full employment over the last three and a half years on what we have already borrowed and spent, at the expense, of course, of Haliburtons bottom line. Bush now wants $1 billion for an Iraqi jobs program. This is what we spend on the occupation every four days.

As far as "winning hearts and minds" is concerned, I have only one word: Fallujah.

"regional stability"? There is not one shred of evidence that the Bush regime seeks regional stability, and there are hundreds of counter examples. The war between Israel and Hezbollah, which included the destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure, and did everything to draw Syria into the conflict, was apparently designed in Dick Cheneys bunker and billed as a crucible for the testing of future wars. Whether out of hubris or a sheer delight in catastrophe, the plan failed to take into account Hezbollahs ability to take out Israeli tanks and heliocopters. Cheneys current plans for war with Iran similarly fails to take into account Iran's ability to take out the United States Navy. Middle East stability and U.S. interests never figured into the game plan of these monsters.

"If our current military effort is not working, ..." I am totally baffled at what you mean by "if". The current military effort is working perfectly from the Bush regimes point of view, and is a total demonstable objective failure from every other point of view.

I agree with you that the "vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful and stable country." By this I suppose you mean the Iraqis who are left. The Iraqi civilian casualties, those who are dead, going on 1 million, represent a fraction of those who will die if we stay around to "fix" the problem. Those who have voted with their feet, and fled the country, going on 3 million, represent nearly all of those who so far have found the means to do so. But since you bring up the feelings of Iraqis, you might point out that a majority consider the existence of the occupying force the primary cause of the violence, and a vast majority, well over 90%, want the U.S. to leave, representing a solid majority of every single faction.

You can be sure that things can get worse. But you seem to have no appreciation for how bad things can get if we stay. The strategy d'Jour is to take on the Shia militias, 65,000 strong, well movitated, armed, determined, increasing in numbers and arms faster than we are. Suppose they enjoin us enthusiatically in a fight. What guarantees are there that we would win? Is it ridiculous to assume that they are transforming as we speak from Palestinian style home made pipe bombs to high tech Hezbollah style rockets and missles. If they develop the ability to take out any and every convoy as well as the heliocopter relief we might send in, then it is like Houston, we have a problem. We use convoys not just for macho and bluster, but for day to day supply.

There is no reason to believe that the Sunni militias are not undergoing a similar transition or would decide to stop fighting us just because we have taken on the Shias. There are just a lot of scenarios that would make an orderly withdrawal over the next four to six months look like a golden opportunity. Of course, it is no problem for Bush per se, he can use the raw emotion of an ignominous defeat to blame Iran, Syria, and Nancy Pelosi (the Saudis always seem to get a pass).

You would think that what is going on this week is a debate between continuing this genocidal disaster with 140,000 or 160,000 troops. What is really going on this week is the wholesale theft of 115 billion barrels of Iraqi oil by Bush and Blair on behalf of British Petroleum, Shell, Chevron and Exxon-Mobile. This unconsionable act will cost more American lives, and cause problems for more generations to come than the entire Iraq war to date. And it is happening mostly under the radar, barely a peep (that I have noticed) from progressive democrats, Randi Rhodes being the most notable exception.

I agree with you, that we must accept responsibility for invading Iraq and bringing chaos to the streets of Baghdad. But what can we do? We can move to impeach Bush-Cheney and prosecute the war criminals. We can repeal the Iraq War Resolution and defeat any further war appropriations. We can pass, instead, appropriations to cover an orderly withdrawal. We can turn U.S. "facilities", airport, green zone, embassy, prisons, permanent bases, over to the Iraqis. We can demolish these 30 year leases and give the Iraqis back their oil.

We can start an Iraq war reparations fund and pay for it by taxing any corporation that made a profit off of this war. GE, Time-Warner, Viacom, Disney, Haliburton, Exxon, etc, etc. If we eliminate any legal protections or immunity against fraud, abuse, war crimes, crimes against humanity, war profiteering and treason, they may be lining up to pay the 120% tax. If we had done this with Vietnam, there would be no Iraq war.

More realistically, there are dozens of things we can do to nibble around the edges of profitability and liability. Effectively taking all the money out of the war machine might end the conflict more rapidly than a timetable for withdrawal, and the precedent would inhibit future wars.

[Apollo11]

68. Thanx

Larry - just wanted you to know that I read your excellent and thoughtful post.

Respectfully yours - Apollo11

[sendero]

67. Your entire point...

.... rests on the notion that there is something we can do to "fix" Iraq. It is a fallacious point, as you will see in the coming months and years.