|
Post by legaltender on May 8, 2007 11:57:54 GMT -5
Who settled on those options and what constitutes "some level of stability?"
al Qaeda's game -- you remember, the group that actually attacked us? -- was to draw the United States into Iraq and Afghanistan quagmires. They're quite simply achieving that goal beyond their wildest dreams. U.S. strikes against local field ops merely cuts off an appendage. The ones calling the shots in the theater have little to fear from their host, Pakistan, which cashes huge foreign aid checks in return for doing almost nothing.
Our security depends on doing things differently than we are doing them now.
|
|
|
Post by daworm on May 8, 2007 13:38:41 GMT -5
That's a new one on me... Sounds like a made up rationalization.
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on May 8, 2007 13:56:08 GMT -5
That's a new one on me... Sounds like a made up rationalization. I agree with DaWorm. However, if a totally impartial, intelligent person were to look at the current state of affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan, and had to decide who was currently "winning", I think they would say Al Qaeda. We need a new strategy, and in my opinion, aside from backing off and letting them fight it out, overwelming numbers is all that will pacify Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 8, 2007 14:22:38 GMT -5
LT said
On another thread regarding the war, LT said
So, I can say that, in so many words, you settled on those two options, LT. I happen to agree with you.
1) Fund the war (Commitment to victory) 2) Actively defund it (Surrender)
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 8, 2007 14:26:26 GMT -5
We also need time for the current strategy (or any strategy for that matter) to be implemented. The troop surge has not even been completed. There is a strategy in place. Why not see if it can work rather than declaring defeat as Sen. Reid has done?
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on May 8, 2007 15:16:00 GMT -5
O.K, see you in October. Lets check back for monthly updates.
I know I'm coming off as cynical, but somebody needs to be. I love my country. I support our troops. But this is not going to end well. How can it? Somebody define success for me now, so I'll have something to measure against in October. Why do we keep throwing good lives and treasure at BAD policy.
Tuesday May 8th 2007 3378 Dead 22188 wounded Thats whats wrong with giving it time to work.
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on May 8, 2007 15:27:02 GMT -5
Every week I watch "This week with George Stephanopolous", at the end of the show each week, they have this segment called "In Memoriam". It brings a tear to my eye every week. I always remember how profoundly moved I was when I saw Sgt. Weirs' name on there, and realize that each one of those names every week is affecting families all over our country. Heres the one from this week. abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3144933
|
|
|
Post by daworm on May 8, 2007 15:36:51 GMT -5
And in what fantasy world will anything get done by October? How long did it take to rebuild Germany or Japan after WWII? And there weren't even religious factions blowing up school kids then. Everyone's so used to instant gratification that they think anything and everything can be done in a half hour, or two or three seasons at the most. If anyone thought when we went in that we'd be out in less than a decade, they were an idiot. Even knowing it would take a long time, and a high cost, I still think the goals are worthwhile. I will agree Rumsfeld tried to do it on the cheap and we're paying for the poor start with poor results now, and that had things been ran better up front we'd be in a better position today. However, those mistakes don't have to be fatal. They just delay things even more.
Just like with Social Security, people aren't willing to buckle down and sacrifice today to avert disaster in the future. Every day we wait, hoping the problems in the Middle East just go away, the worse it will be when it all boils over, especially with more and more nations in the region seeking to go nuclear (do you think we'd ever let Pakistan get away with harboring Bin Laden if they didn't have the bomb?). Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, has the resources to be a prosperous nation (and yes, I mean oil). If it can be stabilized enough that the people on the street start seeing some advantages of a free economy (not necessarily US style democracy, there are types of "democracy" that are better suited to the Muslim mindset), then we'll have an example to the other nations out there that a theocracy or kingdom or dictatorship isn't the best way of governing, an example that isn't the hated Israel, which is the only other country in the region with such a democratic government. Hopefully, that can lead to a more stable Middle East, and (the "what's in it for us" moment) stable and affordable oil supplies. This being the national security interest as much, if not more so, than anything to do with global terrorism (I'd go so far to say the war on terrorism is merely a battle in the war on oil price/availability instability).
You might think that all this is to make Exxon or Haliburton rich. But you're the ones bitching that gas is $3 a gallon. Think about it for a while.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 8, 2007 15:55:26 GMT -5
Indeed. From May/June issue of "Foreign Affairs":
Bruce Riedel is a Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He retired last year after 29 years with the Central Intelligence Agency. He served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East Affairs on the National Security Council (1997-2002), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Near East and South Asian Affairs (1995-97), and National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Intelligence Council (1993-95).
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on May 8, 2007 16:18:39 GMT -5
And in what fantasy world will anything get done by October? I was just going on what John Boehner(?)(R) said. “By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn’t, what’s Plan B?” www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/washington/07congcnd.html?hp
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 8, 2007 17:11:31 GMT -5
Now, another perspective.
We have been in Iraq for four years (48 months roughly). Total US deaths amount to approximately 71 per month.
KIA per month in other US wars.
Gulf War: 148 (Granted the war itself took less than a month) Vietnam: 526/month Korea: 909/month WWII: 6639/month WWI: 2816/month Spanish American War: 96/month US Civil War: 3846/month Mexican War: 87/month War of 1812: 75/month Revolutionary War: 55/month
Our mortality rate in Iraq is, with the exception of the Revolutionary War, lower than any other war in which we have engaged.
Should we now change our policy to one that says we will never go to war if there is any risk of death of any troops?
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 8, 2007 18:28:17 GMT -5
So, I can say that, in so many words, you settled on those two options, LT. Yes, two no-spin options: To fund the war or not fund the war. Options with spin and political invective: 1) Fund the war (Commitment to victory) 2) Actively defund it (Surrender)U.S. forces will and must be funded. The brinkmanship is not a constitutional crisis and Congressional threats could be providing incentives to Iraqi leaders to resolve their differences. "Mortality rate?" Try using the death per troop level. Or, better still, the Wounded-to-Killed Ratio.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 8, 2007 18:33:01 GMT -5
Semantics....and picking nits...
I know it must kill you LT to think that you and I might agree on something.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 8, 2007 19:12:33 GMT -5
Death per troop level versus overall KIA's is "picking nits?"
You're kidding. You won't even define "some level of stability," Mr. Semantics.
Osama bin Laden, I seriously imagine, is gloating over America's entrenchment in Iraq, plotting strategies for luring the United States into a war with Iran. al-Qaeda and Iran both want Washington to remain bogged down in the quagmire.
This is much more a trap than an opportunity. Has been for a couple years. However and whenever it comes, we need to disengage in such a way Iraq can take credit and gain legitimacy in the region. "Surrender" is not moving out of restive cities and just across the border.
I consider al Qaeda a more dangerous enemy today than it has ever been. Every day we waste NOT conducting a new, comprehensive strategy for attacking its leaders and ideas (and altering the local conditions that allow them to thrive) is a day they line up networks of supporters across Europe and North Africa. We need to pressure Pakistan to seriously target terrorists. The fact we haven't is nearly treasonous.
I'm not sure treason comes in shades, actually.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 8, 2007 19:35:54 GMT -5
What are you talking about? Yes, you are picking nits. I simply used the numbers provided of number of US deaths in Iraq as of today as provided by Blackfox, divided by the number of months we have been in Iraq and compared it to KIA numbers per month of other wars. It is not rocket science and the official numbers are likely slightly different, but this close enough to make the point that our casualty rate, by historical comparison, is extremely low.
Regarding, definition of "some level of stabilty", it can be defined in a number of different ways or a combination thereof and there is not, nor should there be, one definition. Again, in post WWII there was not a specfic definition of completion nor was a date set for completion.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 8, 2007 21:45:46 GMT -5
If a comparison war featured three, four or ten times the current Iraqi deployment, a per-month casualty rate would never be as useful a metric as death per troop level. Your frame of reference is misleading.
Again, who's nit-picking? Panmunjom was an in-place stand-down and Vietnam had a 'completion date' when we bugged out. Distinctions which don't matter in the Iraq debate, in any case.
Since the best you can offer is that "some level of stability" in Iraq is "defined in a number of different ways or a combination thereof," let's not parade "Victory" and "Surrender" around so casually.
|
|
|
Post by plasticone on May 8, 2007 23:01:15 GMT -5
Please, please tell me that was sarcasm... Yes, It was sarcasm. ...Most of it anyway.
|
|
Dreamwebber
Senior Forumite
Denise Who?
Burning up my minutes since 1973
Posts: 2,181
|
Post by Dreamwebber on May 9, 2007 1:12:17 GMT -5
And your the party that says you support the troops? I am sorry but, those numbers are not just numbers but are actually people who sacrificed their lives for our Country's service...for you to state that the lives of those sacrificed even though there were less lives lost in this war a month vs for ex. the Civil war disgusts me to no end. 55 revolutionary soldiers who died had 55 sets of parents, brothers, sisters, aunts cousins etc.
I think that is one major problem I am having with those of you in that 29% who still support this President and the war in Iraq...soldiers are just numbers and as long as politicians aren't personally affected by someone in Iraq then it really doesn't matter how long our occupation in Iraq takes. Well just let us know what number of soldiers it will take to die in a month for you to think it's enough!!!
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 9, 2007 6:51:05 GMT -5
You reach some point where sustaining such an effort becomes regional pride. Is the fact that Osama bin Laden delighted that the Iraq war has helped his recruiting effort a persuasive reason for us to stay there and continue to help him out?
Iraqis are beginning to turn on al-Qaeda in places like Anbar and Diyala. What if the fastest way to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq is for us to leave and let the Iraqis do it themselves? If we leave Iraq, the country is unlikely in the extreme to become an al-Qaeda haven. It's rage at the American presence itself that provides a big part of the fuel for AQI's growth. Our withdrawal would eliminate that source of rage and devastate AQI's ability to continue its recruiting.
Their tactics and those of local Iraqi militias left to their own devices would produce high casualty counts. The carnage would be head-turning, even by current standards. But it may be the price we have to pay.
Look, Iraq is probably headed toward a Shiite theocracy not a Wilsonian democracy with Kurds reconciled and passive. The simple fact that none of these factions has any use for al-Qaeda jihadists should be our ace card.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 9, 2007 7:12:03 GMT -5
DW, it matters not to me that you are disgusted by the facts of war. Emotionalizing does nothing to solve problems, as disgusting as that may be to some.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 9, 2007 7:18:00 GMT -5
Then someone needs to make that case from a military perspective but it is pure speculation otherwise.
Were the millions of lives slaughtered after we abandoned Vietnam worth the price?
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on May 9, 2007 7:37:54 GMT -5
Now, another perspective. We have been in Iraq for four years (48 months roughly). Total US deaths amount to approximately 71 per month. KIA per month in other US wars. Gulf War: 148 (Granted the war itself took less than a month) Vietnam: 526/month Korea: 909/month WWII: 6639/month WWI: 2816/month Spanish American War: 96/month US Civil War: 3846/month Mexican War: 87/month War of 1812: 75/month Revolutionary War: 55/month Our mortality rate in Iraq is, with the exception of the Revolutionary War, lower than any other war in which we have engaged. Should we now change our policy to one that says we will never go to war if there is any risk of death of any troops? Your examples are of active hot wars. Battlefield type wars. We are not in a state of war in the classical sense. We are in an occupation. How about posting the number of deaths per month of U.S. soldiers by enemy fire after the cessation of hostilities in all those examples. Apples to Apples. I think you will find your argument turned on it's head. If the Russian army landed in Alaska and started moving south, this country could lose 100,000 lives in a week and everyone would know that it was right and Honorable because we would be fighting for our countries survival and defending our homeland. What we are doing in Iraq does not come up to that. It is a war of choice, not necessity. Therefore the casualties are under much more scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 9, 2007 7:52:06 GMT -5
That is simply a matter of opinion. The same could be said for every war throughout history.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 9, 2007 8:10:50 GMT -5
It's more valuable than your rearview irrelevancies.
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on May 9, 2007 8:21:18 GMT -5
That is simply a matter of opinion. The same could be said for every war throughout history. Perhaps, but if you think the war and occupation in Iraq are out of neccesity, then you are blind.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 9, 2007 8:26:33 GMT -5
I realize this may be a new concept but some of us, like myself, use history for perspective and as a guide to avoid the similar mistakes in the future.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 9, 2007 8:42:27 GMT -5
I simply believe in completing a job and not cutting and running when the going gets tough as some would like for us to do. As I said earlier, we are in Iraq because we militarily toppled a corrupt regime, it is our responsibility under international law to stay until there is a some stability in the region. Simple as that. It will likely take years to get to that point and that will be determined by international standards as much as anything.
Also, arguing for or against the original war resolution is superflous at this point. We are there now and it was a result of multiple factors and supported by both parties, including the previous adminstration. The question is, do we finish the job or not.
I believe we should.
|
|
|
Post by daworm on May 9, 2007 8:54:40 GMT -5
Death per troop level I'd imagine would be roughly the same comparison (not checked), but the wounded to killed ratio will be much, much higher for this war, for the simple fact that we have much better personal armor and much better field treatment for the wounded, resulting in fewer fatalities (which is why I imagine the death per troop level is also on par with the death per month statistics).
Blackfox's point about a hot war is somewhat relevant, in that this isn't army vs. army, but it also isn't the same sort of occupation we've had in other theaters, either. So any comparisons are likely to break down at some level.
Dream... Yes, those numbers represent lives. But as I've stated before, and I think in response to one of your posts, you cannot and should not look at this from the standpoint of "life is the most precious thing". It is precious, but it has a value like anything else that can be compared to the value of anything else. Harsh? Cold? Callous? Perhaps, but it is a reality. At one extreme example, if 4,000 troop deaths keep America from being enslaved, that is worth it, for sure, right? On the other extreme, if 4,000 troop deaths keep gas prices under $3 for a decade, is that worth it too? Probably not. To listen to the Republicans, we're stopping militant Islam from taking over the world, which isn't the whole truth or even most of it. To listen to the Democrats, we're making the oil companies rich(er), which isn't the whole truth either. The truth is somewhere in between, and is a mixture of all of that, and a little Israel, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and Egypt thrown in the mix for good measure. You may still believe the cost in human lives (not to mention the monetary costs) aren't worth it, but it is completely wrong to ever believe that the life of the soldier (or even civilian) is to always be placed above any other goal. That's the whole reason we have soldiers.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 9, 2007 9:04:17 GMT -5
What "perpective?" KIA ratios aren't extant justification. Wars have unique turning points.
A power struggle is taking place in the Sunni triangle, with tribal leaders and coalition forces aligning against a common enemy. That could be this war's 9th inning.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on May 9, 2007 9:04:19 GMT -5
DaWorm, thank you for your diplomacy. Agreed on all points. The State Dept could use you. I tend to cut to the chase.
|
|