Iraq- winning or losing

[Roshambo]

Very good points, Ratty, and I'll admit I was operating there on a point of Devil's Advocate.

Appearances are everything in the political game, and to date, the current US administration has done everything it could to drag the US' reputation down even further. The world doesn't think of the US as a proud older brother of democracy that saved them in WWII, well, not anymore. They see a half-wit CIC that puppets along everything, including lies, to further some agenda that isn't supported by any cohesive evidence.

Appearances also say that Bush Jr. can send troops into any country he feels he can make into a victim, without any say from other countries, on non-existent evidence. That says a lot to other countries, as when you don't care about the political presence of others and invade someone else's country, kill innocent civvies and lie about it on Candid Camera, and otherwise look like you're pillaging the country for one asset but otherwise leave a lot of the country worse off than it was when the US got there.

Too bad the politicians can't be held for murder and wrongful death in military service, but that is probably what they are counting on to save them from this mess. You know, it doesn't help to say that the US will dole out punishments when it is also acceptable to send troops to their deaths over a lie and not even bother to look for said evidence until...how many years has this shit gone on so far, and still we have yet to see anything resembling a WMD? It went from WMDs, then the possibility of WMDs, and then now it is prolonged for the sake of "Iraqi Freedom", which is a pretty weak joke in the Mid-East given the US presence in the past. Factions and politics will only fuck up what the US hopes to achieve, especially if Condoleeza and others wish to leave sometime soon as they say, and the presence has made many of the powers there even more pissed and involved.

But hey, the Vice-Pres and many other cabinet members are richer. The active war profiteering has been in the news, but nobody is really doing anything about that. That was also a crime, but I suppose capitalism is a good thing.

But, blind conformism notwithstanding, American society is (still) a pluralist society. Americans have the option to call down power structures for their failures and vote a bad administration out of the office.

Yeah, in the same way the Democrats could hold a hearing - from a closet. Checks and balances only works so far until it is undermined purposely. At this point, it will take an overwhelming amount of pressure to undermine the garbage the administration is feeding out through news outlets. It is only then we might see anything happen. I seriously doubt the international front is willing to try and hold the current US administration accountable for the numerous careless civvy deaths the military has caused. So Iraqis can vote.

That's another sore point with me. In the past, troops had to give accurate reports on everything. Now, from the Pentagon even, US troops are not bothering to report the amount of non-hostile casualties, native to the region or not. That kind of willful irresponsibility is SICK.

It certainly isn't the military I was part of. Hell, I'm not even sure it's the same country anymore.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0417-02.htm

Senior U.S. officials insist the current fighting is only a "spike" and not indicative of a widening war. On Thursday, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the current fighting as a "symptom of the success" U.S. forces are having in Iraq. "The sole intent" of the insurgents is to stop Iraq's transition to self-governance and democracy, he said.

Yeah...a "spike". This was last year. Again, why is this year even more fucked up? Oh, yeah...it's summer. No offense, Elissar, but that excuse is utter bullshit, and I would really be hesitant to believe any of the other lies they have been feeding you. I can't believe the "it's summer" crap, because the highest peak of recent US soldier deaths was last November. It is also back on the rise. This also kind of makes me disbelieve the whole "it's just summer" thing. I've been there. The lessened attacks might be due to the fact that even while wearing dresses, the forecast calls for "FUCKING HOT" in the summer, often made worse by the seasonal winds. Nevermind about frozen balls, that can be fixed with a strategic turban wrap. Imagine how hard it is to wear a suicide belt when you are sweating your balls off. I can believe, however, that the summer would be better for bombing a crowded marketplace.

Even the insurgents are better at math than most US officials. Here is an example ratio from a couple of attacks: 1 suicide bomber dead: ~20 Iraqis dead: ~10 Coalition troops dead. This is the same kind of tactics that US troops were falling prey to in Vietnam, and I would have to say that the troops, including the reservists, are similarly far too green in that kind of warfare to really stand a chance of disrupting such attacks. Remember, the insurgents are veterans at fighting like this. Then there is a change in the insurgents tactics as well. No, things are not that good.

In Vietnam, some regions were relatively "safe". In Iraq, they now have disguised "Viet Cong" all over the fucking place, and the suicide bombings have proven that it really doesn't matter where in Iraq you are, there is still a risk of falling prey to piss-poor security of trigger-happy Rambo kids being unable to properly identify security risks, develop or use proper intel, leading to the deaths of innocents by their guns as they twitch on wedding parties and the deaths of others by the insurgent bombers being missed by the fucking clueless.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00025.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

While the study was estimated, some have calculated a lesser number to around 25k reported Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of Coalition forces. This still doesn't include the civvy deaths that US troops don't bother to report, because they are under orders not to. This order is from the Pentagon, who now doesn't even bother to keep track of the number of civilian casualties, which is a distinct difference from earlier wars/conflicts. So...uh...My Lai was a big issue.

That's right, "they're just towelheads" there that like to kill each other. So why bother counting? Sorry, almost forgot that important point.

Per-month in duration of the conflicts, there have been more coalition troop deaths in Iraq to date during this fiasco than in the same time schedule in the Vietnam War. For that matter, also include a parallel of civvys the VC and US killed in Viet Nam, although it's getting hard to tell who is winning at the game of "Kill the Iraqi", the Coalition troops or the insurgency. Now all that needs to be added is a higher escalation of foreign involvement, and the increase of "Summer Dress Bombers" will be the least of our concerns. The White House likes to come up with many excuses as to why the attacks keep increasing, but so far "a spike" and "summer" really don't cut it.

But the Secretary of State thinks we can just pull another "Vietnamisation".
What the fuck was this bitch snorting in '69 to miss that mistake? Or does she really believe that Iraqis who are given a badge after a week of training can adequately fight veteran terrorists who have been at this for years, who put others through training to die at ground zero of the bomb they just lit off?

It's the summer.

Other U.S. officials say they still believe that foreign fighters are responsible for most of the suicide attacks, which have increasingly targeted Iraqi civilians and security forces. "There is no evidence this is being done by Iraqis," said U.S. Maj. Gen. John Defreitas, intelligence chief for the multinational mission that has 150,000 troops in Iraq. "In every case we've seen, the driver has been a foreigner."

Coalition officials acknowledge, however, that the numbers show an Iraqi-dominated insurgency. Fewer than 5 percent of those killed or captured have been foreigners, one official noted. He also described the influx from abroad as a "very, very small part" of the estimated 12,000 to 20,000 insurgents.

Damn...either the general just lied, or someone needs to give him an updated statistics sheet so he can develop a clue. Oh, wait...he's a General! He definitely knows what's going on there, fo' sho'. 8)

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Appearances are everything in the political game, and to date, the current US administration has done everything it could to drag the US' reputation down even further. The world doesn't think of the US as a proud older brother of democracy that saved them in WWII, well, not anymore. They see a half-wit CIC that puppets along everything, including lies, to further some agenda that isn't supported by any cohesive evidence.

That is definitely true. It simply amazes me how loathed America has become in these last four years in my country, especially when you consider that average Croat's view of America and its global role was fairly positive. This is partially due to Iraq, but moreso because general attitude of the Bush administration towards its foreign allies is vastly different from that of Clinton's administration. During Clinton we were treated as partners and received a lot of military, logistical and diplomatic aid. Bush's USA is nothing like that. They treat us as pawns to be exploited - our troops are sent to Afghanistan, our territory and logistics are used for American bases without any compensation, yet we receive a cold shoulder whenever we ask something in return. Relations between Croatia and USA have never been worse than in the last four years, mainly because Croatia refused to act like a good subordinate lapdog in regard to several matters which *directly* conflicted our own national interests - including the invasion of Iraq. Then there is also the small matter of the White House lobbying against us in Brussels because - get the irony - we aren't cooperative with the Hague tribunal. Talk about pot calling the kettle back. To make the irony even more blatant, the party currently in power in Croatia is pro-American. Hell, had they been in power in 2003, our soldiers would now be merely getting shot up in Nadjaf, Falluja or some damn shithole.

Damn, if an administration treats its foreign partners like that, how can it treat its own people differently? And vice versa.

 

[Roshambo]

Damn, if an administration treats its foreign partners like that, how can it treat its own people differently? And vice versa.

Very true. The vice-versa definitely rings true.
If an administration is willing to have thousands of their own people (who are already prepared to lay down their life in the defense of everything noble they were taught of the US) die or be wounded with ever-pending VA compensation and possibly homeless on the streets, over a lie that has little apparent longevity in purpose other than to make the politicians rich, then how else do you expect them to treat foreign civilians and military?

I, too, remember when Clinton was in office, as I was in the military then and years previous. It is nowhere the same. Back then, even foreign civvy casualties would be put in report. Now, it doesn't even seem as if they care about Iraqi casualties at all, and yet we're supposed to be "saving" them. That, to me, epitomizes the fact that the current administration does not truly give a damn about the Iraqi people, Iraqi govt, or anything else relating to Iraqi or its people as a society.

And that is what made this war a failure from the start, at least in the eyes of the world.

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

It certainly isn't the military I was part of.

No offense, Elissar, but that excuse is utter bullshit, and I would really be hesitant to believe any of the other lies they have been feeding you.

Yep, not the same military, but someone's still an expert.

I don't know though, the info I get seems to paint a much bigger picture, in the positive and the negative. Of course they want to brief us on false info. I mean, hasn't everyone heard the current administration yelling, "Every soldier dead is just another reason we need to stay over there!"

Oh wait...that's not what they are saying.

 

[Roshambo]

I mean, hasn't everyone heard the current administration yelling, "Every soldier dead is just another reason we need to stay over there!"

Oh wait...that's not what they are saying.

That's pretty low, shithead. Keep your "witticisms" at the expense of their lives to the Order if you want to keep up that bullshit.

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

I mean, hasn't everyone heard the current administration yelling, "Every soldier dead is just another reason we need to stay over there!"

Oh wait...that's not what they are saying.

That's pretty low, shithead. Keep your witticism's at the expense of their lives to the Order if you want to keep up that bullshit.

So you're the one and only true patriot on these forums? You should keep your anti-war rhetoric at the expense of their lives elsewhere also.

 

[Roshambo]

So you're the one and only true patriot on these forums?

But of course you're going to make the hyperbolic remark that the administration must be taking good care of the troops, because increasingly more troops are dying...you know, it's just easier to call you a fucktard butterbars. With officers like you, who needs wedding parties? After all, the administration MUST be right, and there were no children decapitated or even any children at all in that incident. See, I can make tasteless jokes, even though your beloved administration doesn't even care to count how many they "accidentally" kill...but didn't kill.

You should keep your anti-war rhetoric at the expense of their lives elsewhere also.

At least I'm not willing to make a cheap joke that excuses the loss of their lives in the face of a likely lie. Actually, if there were WMDs, that would probably be the first thing Bush Jr. would be waving around, as I'm sure he'd forget about his own dick in the excitement. So I say, it IS a lie.

You have NO honor. Back in your cage.

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

So you're the one and only true patriot on these forums?

But of course you're going to make the hyperbolic remark that the administration must be taking good care of the troops, because more troops are dying...you know, it's just easier to call you a fucktard butterbars.

So now you are putting words into my mouth. Please show me where I said the administration was taking good care of the troops. Ooh...butterbar, there's something I've never heard.

You should keep your anti-war rhetoric at the expense of their lives elsewhere also.

At least I'm not willing to make a cheap joke that excuses the loss of their lives in the face of a likely lie. You have NO honor. Back in your cage.

Once again, where am I excusing the loss of their lives. Am I in favor of what we are doing in Iraq: Yes. Is the war we are waging over there being run perfectly: No. I can think of a whole bunch of things I'd be doing different, but then again...NEITHER ONE OF US IS SEEING THE INTEL THAT THEY HAVE.

There was poor leadership in different aspects of WWI and people died because of it.

There was poor leadership in different aspects of WWII and people died because of it.

There was poor leadership in different aspects of the Korean Conflict and people died because of it...and so on.

Does it justify the deaths: no. Does it mean our soldiers should be cannon fodder by default: no. Those people joined the military, not the Girl Scouts. Just like me, I joined the military and chances are I'll see Iraq, I might see combat and I might even die from it. No one put a gun to my head and said, "Join or else!"

Does any of this justify it? No. But your narrowminded view doesn't justify crap either, and contrary to your belief you DON'T know it all. In fact it is clear from your posts that your anti-war bias is largely politically motivated. I have plenty of honor, more than you.

 

[Roshambo]

So now you are putting words into my mouth. Please show me where I said the administration was taking good care of the troops.

Or had the interests and welfare of troops in mind, same thing.

Am I in favor of what we are doing in Iraq: Yes. Is the war we are waging over there being run perfectly: No. I can think of a whole bunch of things I'd be doing different, but then again...NEITHER ONE OF US IS SEEING THE INTEL THAT THEY HAVE.

Funny thing is, the insurgents seem to have said intel at several points. That means shitty security, and thusly avoidable. It also might help to have experience with dealing with these kind of combatants, but judging from well, what is going on, they seem to be pretty clueless as even more bombs keep increasing in frequency.

Speaking of intel, how about that wedding party?

There was poor leadership in different aspects of WWI and people died because of it.

There was poor leadership in different aspects of WWII and people died because of it.

There was poor leadership in different aspects of the Korean Conflict and people died because of it...and so on.

How DARE you bring those wars into the discussion in that way, when at least those wars had LEGITIMATE PRESENCE. Look that one up, kid, and let me know when you discover how to do things the right way. Waging a war and invading a sovereign nation over non-existent WMDs is nowhere near the same ballpark as the wars you mention, and you are a low shit for using this validation.

Once again, where am I excusing the loss of their lives.

You just did it again.

Does it justify the deaths: no.

Yet in the context you just used it in, you just tried to justify their deaths because there were mistakes made in previous, legitimate wars. Illegitimate wars, if you need some refreshment of history, are a war crime. In fact, that was why Hideki Tojo was executed.

Piss-poor officers like you should try reading books instead of chewing on them. Especially when they can clue you in on acceptable military practice, which might just be a bit relevant seeing as you're playing soldier.

Does it mean our soldiers should be cannon fodder by default: no.

Then you go to contradict yourself with the following bullshit.

Those people joined the military, not the Girl Scouts. Just like me, I joined the military and chances are I'll see Iraq, I might see combat and I might even die from it. No one put a gun to my head and said, "Join or else!"

Ah, the "you enlisted, so prepare to die" bullshit, that you are again excusing their deaths with. How much lower can you get, when each paragraph you write calls yourself a liar?

The peril of military death does ring true, but it also relies on one fact; that the enlistee or officer isn't going to be put into a bullshit war and perform war crimes on behalf on the orders of others.

You know, I thought the US were supposed to be good guys, but hey, whatever you want to believe.

Does any of this justify it? No. But your narrowminded view doesn't justify crap either, and contrary to your belief you DON'T know it all. In fact it is clear from your posts that your anti-war bias is largely politically motivated.

Political? No, it should have been obvious that I object to the abuse of the military by politicians who not only lie directly to the troops' faces, but also profit from the troop deaths at no risk to themselves. I think I explained this to you in depth last time, but apparently I didn't use small enough words. I also don't care for chickenshit officers that have no fucking clue of the Geneva Conventions.

I have plenty of honor, more than you.

I'm not the one who is making light of soldier deaths, and is willing to continue and excuse a lie and an illegitimate war for pathetic reasons, and then on top of that lie repeatedly about it. You also can't claim any honor when you excuse illegitimate wars and war crimes that lead to the deaths of fellow troops, and the lie about it on top of that. Sorry, sonny, but Bush Jr. can come up with bullshit a bit more convincing, even if it still is bullshit.

I'm tired of the doublespeak. Goodbye.

 

[Jebus]

Again?

 

[welsh]

Rosh and Tone, please try to keep this debate polite.

The problem with these debates is that when they get too personal no one wants to talk about it. I remember the last election and how the republicans all seemed to be coming out the closet or how many didn't want to talk about the issues because the debates get to personal and to nasty.

This was also a problem of the Vietnam War era. For years no one talked about the war, it became a taboo topic. It wasn't until I was in college (in the late 1980s) that anyone talked seriously about that war. Part of the reason was it got too personal, and because of that the debates that should have been were never held.

Not sure if that's true on other campuses but a lot of people just don't want to talk about the war and people have lost friends because the other person was a conservative or liberal.

So Tone, Rosh- come on, let's take it down a notch.

 

[Brother None]

Again?

Oh, Frith on a stick, AGAIN?!?!?!

Roooooooossh!

 

[welsh]

Tonight W made a speech to try to either rally the troops or public support for the war. Lately US support has been slipping.

So let's see- while W tries to sell the country on his social security plan, he gets upstaged by Mike Jackson while US support for the war begins to slip. At least the Administration is consistent in its level of competence.

For those who missed it and want to read- text of the speech

Did he convince you?

See the war is about terrorism (we fight them in Iraq so they don't fly planes into US buildings- that is until they really want attention and figure out that Americans will care more about watching the Sears Tower in flames than yet another car bombing)./

WMDs???? What's a WMD?

It's about terrorism- (but isn't the war creating more terrorists?)

Bush: Iraq 'vital' to U.S. security
President addressed nation from Army post

So let's see - he declares victory on an aircraft carrier a few years ago and then says... we got to stay the course a few years later at Ft. Bragg.

Is he implying that maybe "hey maybe I was a bit premature back a few years ago...." I

Tuesday, June 28, 2005; Posted: 8:54 p.m. EDT (00:54 GMT)

President Bush speaks to soldiers Tuesday at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.WATCH Browse/Search
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Seeking to turn around sagging public support for the war in Iraq, President Bush said Tuesday that the sacrifices being made there are "worth it" and "vital to the future security of our country."

Interestingly he didn't mention oil or military industrial complexs that are essential strategic industries. Perhaps that doesn't sell to the public ear?

Bush marked the one-year anniversary of the U.S. handover of sovereignty to Iraqis with a speech before a military audience at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, which is home to Airborne and special operations forces.

The president rejected suggestions that the United States should set a timetable for withdrawing troops.

"Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message" to Iraqi citizens, U.S. troops and insurgents, Bush said. "We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer."

Ok, saying that we're going to leave soon might mean that terrorist can out-wait the US. It might undermine confidence of the Iraqis that the US won't stay the course.

But it might also send a clear message that the US will eventually leave. Perhaps instead of a time table a "road map" might be better.

(1) public order is achieved
(2) The Iraqi army is actually carrying out 90% of the military operations
(3) Insurgents are being prevented from coming across the border.

Bush also rejected calls that the United States should send more troops to help put down the insurgency.

"Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight," he said. "Sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."

But if you want to send a message to leave, than perhaps the administration could establish some kind of a list of conditions prior to leaving?

The United States, however, has "more work to do," Bush said.

"There will be tough moments that test America's resolve," he said. "The terrorists do not understand America. The American people do not falter under threat -- and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins."

Bush called the work in Iraq "difficult and dangerous."

Ok, but is it as dangerous or difficult as it has to be?

"Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real," he said. "Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question, 'Is the sacrifice worth it?' It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country."

Again, if the war is creating more terrorists, is this war helping security or hindering it.

I am also not completely convinced that the US can't seal off the borders. The French were effective in locking up the borders during its Algerian War- and that was back in the 1950s.

Bush laid out his case for why the effort is important to U.S. security and said the insurgents in Iraq are failing.

"The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance of freedom," Bush said. "The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11 ... if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi ... and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like [Osama] bin Laden."

And a lot of this falls on the argument that there have been no further attacks in the US- but is that honest?
No- this isn't a jibe about the many "terrorist threats" during the last election year (and strangely silent this year).

The 9-11 was a fairly cheap exercise- a couple of dozen terrorists armed with box knives who had been living in the US for a few years and had learned to fly (but strangely not land) aircraft. Terrorism is cheap.

It is also normal that whenever you create a defense, the opponent looks for away around that defense- and let's be honest to admit that there are lots of holes in US "homeland" security.

If the terrorists really wanted to hit us at home again, they could.

Also, the idea that the Iraqi invasion has shaped democratic reform in the middle east is a bit overstated. Could it be Libya turned over its WMDs because WMDs don't make money, but trading them an end of sanctions might? Democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia and Egypt are a joke. And what happens when democratic elections lead to a radical and militant Islamic party (Hezbollah)?

"We are fighting against men with blind hatred, and armed with lethal weapons, who are capable of any atrocity," Bush said. "They wear no uniform. They respect no laws of warfare or morality. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They will fail."

I don't think demonizing your enemy is that smart, nor assuming they are irrational or blinded by hatred. Terrorists have generally been rational in their use of fear and often operate in a strategic way, and are driven by ideals that are moral to them. Afterall, the destruction of yourself for a cause is itself an act of character - a point made well in Conrad's The Secret Agent.

The president faces an American public growing restless with Iraq.

According to the most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll -- released Monday -- just 40 percent of those responding said they approved of Bush's handling of the war; 58 percent said they disapproved -- up 2 percentage points from May.

Could it be because the messages we receive are crossed. Because we don't get much good news. Because 'quagmire' seems a fitting adjective for this war.

But Bush gets higher ratings on how he is handling terrorism, with 55 percent approving and 41 percent disapproving.

But would he have better scores if he had just concentrated on one war (Afghanistan) instead of two. Interesting that I think the president mentioned that Iraq has become a haven of terrorists- perhaps because it wasn't before?

The president made repeated references in his speech to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, calling Iraq "the latest battlefield" in the war on terrorism.

But Monday's poll found that half of Americans do not see the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror that began after September 11, 2001.

Well, that also means that 1/2 believe that the there was a relationship..... What relationship?

Pelosi: Strategy changes needed
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said earlier Tuesday that Bush should go further than simply reiterating his policy, particularly amid recent statements from congressmen who have heard from military leaders in Iraq that Iraqi forces are not nearly ready to take over their own security.

"When a country goes to war, two important components are trust and truth," Pelosi said. "It's time for the president of the United States to level with the American people and to tell them what is actually happening in Iraq, what the status of the training of Iraqi troops are, so that we can soon turn the responsibility for the security of Iraq over to the Iraqis."

Yes, a bit more news might help. A little more honesty, more transparency- a little more faith in the American people and a little less doublespeak.

U.S. officials have said there are about 169,000 Iraqi security forces (army, police, border guards, etc.), but some lawmakers have questioned the accuracy of the figure and the amount of training the troops have.

Strategy changes are necessary to accomplish U.S. goals in Iraq, Pelosi said.

But Bush laid out a two-track strategy for success in Iraq -- the military and the political -- saying that the way out of Iraq is to stay the course.

There are about 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. More than 1,740 U.S. troops have died there since the war began in March 2003 -- 883 of them after last June's handover.

So lets see more dead in the past year than the year before.

And how many terrorists.... oh we don't know that.

The Iraqi government has made key strides in the year since it regained sovereignty, including historic elections in January. But the fledgling country has seen no let-up in the insurgency.

On Tuesday, a prominent Shiite tribal leader who is a member of Iraq's National Assembly was killed in a suicide bomb attack in northern Baghdad, police said.

Iraq's transitional administrative law calls for a new, permanent constitution to be prepared by August 15 and put to the voters in a referendum by October 15. If the constitution is approved, then elections for a permanent governmental structure under the new law will occur by the end of the year.

A process that seems to be taking forever.

Kerry challenges administration
The administration frequently stresses the political successes in Iraq, particularly last year's handover of sovereignty and January's elections.

But Sen. John Kerry -- Bush's opponent in last year's presidential election -- challenged the administration's record on that front as well in a Tuesday editorial in The New York Times.

Kerry writes the U.S. government has "failed to devote equal attention to working with the Iraqi government on the economic and political fronts," resulting in slow rebuilding even in Kurdish areas despite the elections and transition of power.

That's also a worthwhile consideration- are the political and economic aspects of the war working? Remember this is an insurgency so it's about winning "hearts and minds"- having them believe in you and perhaps filling their bellies.

Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, writes that the president "is courting disaster with ... a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success."

Which might be because all we see is "same old, same old".

"So what should the president say tonight?" Kerry asks. "The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in 'last throes' leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state."

Yes, the last throes... what the fuck did that mean.

Kerry also suggests that the United States announce it has no plans for a permanent presence in Iraq and that the American government should step up training of Iraqi forces.

No permanent presence- what are the odds of that? And if you are convinced, perhaps the memory of "this insurgency will be over in 6 months" or "the oil from Iraq will pay for the occupation" lines might be worth reconsidering.

 

[Roshambo]

Again, if the war is creating more terrorists, is this war helping security or hindering it.

I'll let this fellow speak for himself:

One of these men is Ismael. He left Baghdad fifteen years ago because he overtly opposed the regime of Saddam Hussein. His once-valid political refugee status is now in question in Jordan, and he does not wish to return to Iraq since his country is in flames. He openly voices his support of the armed resistance in Iraq.

“I support the resistance in Iraq,” he tells me while lighting a cigarette, “They are honorable people and the Americans deserve to be killed since they invaded our country.”

Amazing. Now comes the possibility that many of the insurgents are just Iraqis that simply don't want the US invading?

Come to think of it, it brings to light a similar hypothetical situation. If Washington D.C. were to fall, it doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees with the administration. I think that US citizens would be willing at that point to do anything they could to try and hinder what they consider an invasion of their land, their home. In fact, some even go to the point of preparing for it, silly as that sounds. Yes, a jackass rules/ruled the country, but it's still their home.

Even more, from another person in the same article.

“Iraqis must have a new government, this time with legal elections,” he explains while we stand in the shade of a palm tree, “I think we need a revolution to get things back to where they once were for us. Then, Insh’Allah [God willing] I will go back. Saddam was so much better than these bastards [US occupation forces], even though I hated him.”

Ouch. No kiss?

 

[John Uskglass]

Uh...Rosh...what site is that?

Anyway, Iraqi government is a freely elected representative government, perfectly legitimate in every nonpartisan eye I can think of. As long as they want us there, I feel we have an obligation to be there.

 

[TheSarge]

No, the Iraqi government (such as it is) is a puppet regime. Don't let the nice men in the suits who don't speak english fool you. Never mind that they were elected: Being elected does not make one a government, actually GOVERNING makes one a government.

As far as governing goes, the current bunch that the Bush Administration likes to point at and say "See? We're not in charge over there anymore, those guys are"; well, they ain't in charge of much. They are in charge of making grand plans, of looking good in front of a camera and giving hope to the whole situation. They are also in charge of... um... not much else, really. Sure there's the "Iraqi Army" (trained, funded and equipped by Not The Iraqi Government) the Police (when they're not busy being blown into tiny chunks by suicide bombers) and the various utilities (sewer, water, electrical, phones, etc) that they are nominally in charge of re-building.

Don't get me wrong: I want the Iraqis to govern themselves, but I fear that they will never get that ship-of-state out of the dry-dock int's currently in, much less the harbor. Those terrorists, insurgents, or whatever you want to call them (freedom fighters?) seem to be hell-bent on demolishing anything that's been tainted by western influence, especially American Influence.

In short, there's a lot of guys with guns and bombs running around in Iraq. Not such a horrible thing, except that they have this annoying tendency to try and blow themselves up and take as many other people with them as they can. If we could somehow get it so they only blow THEMSELVES up, I think I could live with that. Trouble is, these "Insurgents" aren't easy to reason with on that point. You talk to one and ask him politely to blow himself up alone in a large bunker and he's all "Al aga u Baka!" and then suddenly he's lunging at you with a knife and shouting something about infidels and dogs. Of course, at that point you have to shoot him in the head, so the whole reasoning-with-the-terrorist thing kinda ends right there. If only they didn't like blowing themselves up so much.
:sigh:
What is it with blowing yourself up that's so appealing to them, anyways? Is there some sort of islamic cartoon I am unaware of that trains children from an early age to believe that candy rains from the sky whenever a bomb goes off?

Of course, if americans bombed the crap out of my town, killed my family and generally stomped all over the countryside I might be a little pissed at them too, but I'm not about to strap a bomb to myself or drive a suicide bomb anywhere. I'm crazy, not stupid. Dead people don't get to do much except provide for the invertibre forms of life in the form of decaying flesh, and so I plan on avoiding that aspect of life as long as I can, thank you very much. (death may be an aspect of life, but that doesn't mean you have to accelerate the process).

As far as who's winning this war... well DUH! Let's see...
Invading army still loosing bodys on the ground.
insurgents still happily blowing stuff up.
Body count hasn't stopped rising since this thing began.
Bush still a lier. WMDs still a fairy-tale. Torture still in use by US government (in Syria, in Guntanimo Bay, and soon in a army base near you)
Just who is "winning" this war, and what did they win? As far as I can see, everybody looses.
Except the oil companies: They just love dubya. War = profit for them: It was an excellent excuse to raise the price of oil, you know.

 

[Per]

Except the oil companies: They just love dubya. War = profit for them: It was an excellent excuse to raise the price of oil, you know.

Oil companies have it easy. If the price goes up, they get paid more for their oil and it was all a set-up because obviously they wanted it that way. If the price goes down, they sell more quantity and it was all a set-up because obviously they wanted it that way. Just imagine: a business where whatever happens, it's the best possible outcome! I mean, how could that not be the result of a Great Western Conspiracy?

 

[Roshambo]

Of course, if americans bombed the crap out of my town, killed my family and generally stomped all over the countryside I might be a little pissed at them too, but I'm not about to strap a bomb to myself or drive a suicide bomb anywhere. I'm crazy, not stupid. Dead people don't get to do much except provide for the invertibre forms of life in the form of decaying flesh, and so I plan on avoiding that aspect of life as long as I can, thank you very much. (death may be an aspect of life, but that doesn't mean you have to accelerate the process).

Many Iraqis probably would strap on a bomb, as everything they knew and loved was destroyed and perhaps consecutively lied about by American authorities, and the person might have been abused on top of it all. Yes, Saddam is taken out of power. Unfortunately, US troops accidentally or not killed their family and now their neighborhood has been turned into a war zone. They also don't have many places to go, and escaping from American-held Iraq can be a trial in itself, and on top of that now they can't claim political refugee in other countries anymore.

Let me put it into perspective.

These people now can't hold jobs, even IF their home still exists and the front porch isn't under constant fire from everyone. There are almost NO JOBS to be held except for those offered by corporations and some surviving businesses there. Without any source of income, these people can't buy food. Without food, they can't very well live. Without any reason or ability to live, taking action against those who invaded your country looks extremely good.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Uh...Rosh...what site is that?

It's http://dahrjamailiraq.com/. It contains articles and reports written by Dahr Jamail, an American journalist who, dissatisfied with (lack of) objectivity of American media outlets in regard to Iraqi situation, went to Iraq on his own and toured the country for 8 months. His reports are very interesting and shed a new light on the American role in Iraq. In these reports, Jamail reveals, among other things, that Americans used napalm and other banned weapons in Falluja, that they indiscriminantly killed insurgents and civilians alike, that they make a habit of arresting and torturing journalists who travel to Iraq in their own arrangement and that they executed civilians who failed to obey their orders because they didn't understand a word of English. Overall, reports indicate that Americans care little for lives and safety of Iraqi citizens and that their actions are aimed at perpetuating the state of chaos in Iraq by sponsoring an incompetent and oppressive government and sometimes applying tried strategies such as divide et impera to strengthen their position in the country. Definitely an interesting read.

 

[John Uskglass]

Definitely an interesting read.

Any proof at all though? Any at all? In an age of Webcams and pictures in the worst holes in all of the world can be released and end in the soldiers involved being dealed with, I simply refuse to believe that napalm can be under raps.

It's a simple and frank matter of logic. Enlightenment philosophers used similar arguments against magic, and I would frankly be amazed if no one else sees the obvious flaw here.

Napalm is destructive stuff. Destructive on a very, very large scale. And thus, easy, as a matter of fact beyond easy to take a picture of. And it's not difficult at all for pictures to travel across borders or find themselves either on the web or across the border in Iran, Jordan, Syria or Saudi Arabia.

Thus one of two things are going on here:
1) Despite the obvious facts above, that a massive conspiracy is going on and the US is using Napalm on Fallujah, the US is tortuing civilians,journalists and a lot of ordinary people, and every major media outlet is completley wrong, as are every major, sane source
2) This guy is full of it, and by it I mean particularly putrid, terrible shit.

Someone sane talking about the issue: Fareed Zakaria

This is the picture in Iraq: A conflict that the United States cannot easily lose, but also cannot easily win.
By Fareed Zakaria
For more articles by Fareed Zakaria, visit the archive.

I don't see how Iraq's insurgency can win. It lacks the support of at least 80 percent of the country (Shiites and Kurds), and by all accounts lacks the support of the majority of the Sunni population as well. It has no positive agenda, no charismatic leader, virtually no territory of its own, and no great power suppliers. That's why parallels to Vietnam and Algeria don't make sense. But despite all these obstacles, the insurgents launched 700 attacks against U.S. forces last month, the highest number since the invasion.

They are getting more sophisticated, now using shaped charges, which concentrate the blast of a bomb, and infrared lasers, which cannot be easily jammed. They kill enough civilians every week that Iraq remains insecure, and electricity, water and oil are still supplied in starts and stops. That's where things stand in Iraq—it's a conflict the United States cannot easily lose but also cannot easily win.

The positive picture is worth painting. Iraq has had successful elections, a new (and more legitimate) government, Sunnis included into the political process, and is working on a new constitution. The insurgents' attacks on ordinary Iraqis are having the predictable effect of making them lose popular support. When I was in Iraq recently, several Iraqis (all Sunnis) told me that they were losing respect for and patience with the insurgents. "These guys are thugs who are killing Iraqis, not resistance fighters battling the occupation," one of them said. And finally, Iraqi politicians have been more mature and steadfast than one could have ever hoped for—making compromises, arriving at consensus and moving forward under tremendous personal danger.

What I worry about is not a defeat along the lines of Vietnam. It is something different. If the insurgents keep up their attacks, prevent reconstruction and renewed economic activity and, most important, continue to attract jihadists to Iraq from all over the region and the world. Last month's leaked CIA report, which described Iraq as the new on-the-ground training center for Islamic extremists, points to the real danger. If thousands of jihadists hone their skills in the streets and back alleys of Iraq and then return to their countries, it could mark the beginning of a new wave of sophisticated terror. Just as Al Qaeda was born in the killing fields of Afghanistan, new groups could grow in the back alleys of Iraq. And many of these foreigners are kids with no previous track record of terror. Some even have European passports, which means that they will be very difficult to screen out of the United States or any other country.

Additionally, by the fall of 2006, it will be virtually impossible to maintain current troop levels in Iraq because the use of reserve forces will have been stretched to the limit. That's when pressure to bring the boys home will become irresistible. And that would be bad news for the Iraqi government, which is still extremely weak and in many areas dysfunctional.

The good news is that America has stopped blundering in Iraq. After two and a half years of errors, since late 2004, Washington has been urging political inclusion, speeding up economic reconstruction and building up local forces. But U.S. policy still lacks central direction‹and the energy, vision, increased resources and push that such direction would bring. Who is running Iraq policy in Washington?

The intense and bitter interagency squabbles of the past three years—and the disastrous mistakes made by the Defense Department and the Coalition Provisional Authority—have left Iraq something of an orphan. Day to day, Iraq policy is now run by the State Department and the U.S. Army, but those two chains of command never meet.

On the civilian side, for example, the American effort is massively understaffed. Several Army officers in Iraq told me that their jobs would be greatly improved if they had more people from the State Department, USAID and other civilian agencies helping. One said to me last year, "I've had 25-year-old sergeants adjudicating claims between Turkomans and Kurds, when they don't really know how they are different. We could use political officers who could brief them."

The vacuum is being filled by the U.S. Army, which has been building bridges and schools, securing neighborhoods and power plants and, yes, adjudicating claims between Turkomans and Kurds. It is doing these things because someone has to. Secretary Rumsfeld has long argued that American troops should never engage in nation building, leaving that to locals. But while we waited for Iraqis to do it, chaos broke out and terror reigned. So the Army on the ground has ignored Rumsfeld's ideology and has simply made things work. (It's a good rule of thumb for the future.)

But if we want to move beyond coping, we need a full-scale revitalization of Iraq policy, with resources to match it. Muddling along will ensure we don't lose in Iraq, but we won't win either.