Iraq, again.

[TayTay]

We should air our differences and say what we feel. Speaking for myself, I like hearing other opinions, particularly from people with strong military backgrounds (or with family members who served.) I know only what I know (sigh) and am actively seeking other opinions.

Anyway, read this thread on DKos: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/6/231049/886
Scary, scary stuff. I wonder what this will mean for our long term involvement. Sigh!

[Mass]

1. This is really frightening, but also in accordance with what I read

from other sources that I respect.

I had been for a long time supporter of the idea that we have to stay to help rebuild what we broke and help the Iraqis people create their country anew.

However, I have been evolving quickly these last few weeks. It is becoming more and more obvious that things are not evolving and that the situation is degrading daily and the current administration is not doing anything. I am afraid we have passed the point of non-return, the point where the presence of American forces is doing more bad than good because there is no way Iraqis people trust them.

This is why I am getting to support a plan that would withdraw the troops after the December elections. Short of an actual plan that says where we are going and in what goal, what metrics would constitute success and what is a timetable, I do not see anything good coming from the troops staying.

[TayTay]

2. I am also going in that direction.

I find this to be agonizing. I did not support this war at the beginning. However, we were there and had to deal with the reality of being there. I wanted something good to happen for the Iraqi people. I thought, for a time, that we might be able to do that.

I no longer do. Reports like the one in the DKos thread mentioned above just make me believe more strongly that we (the US) just might not be the ones who can fix what we broke. That opens up the can of worms about why we are there. If we can't bring democracy, if we can't help rebuild the country, if we can't bring the factions together and if we can't protect the innocent, then why are we there?

[Island Blue]

3. I think the bush* administration has totally, completely and utterly

failed in Iraq. While I have been against the war since before day one, I too went through a period where I hoped that something positive could be accomplished there (although I never ever bought the Freedom is on the March line). At this point, we seem to be making the situation worse everyday that we remain there.

I now believe that as long as the current administration* is in office, the mess we have made there cannot be cleaned up. I really have no idea why we are actually there. I suspect it's because of the fact that our oil somehow mysteriously got placed under their sand, but even the liberating the oil part of the mission seems to have failed. Maybe the purpose of the war was to make companies like Halliburton a boat load of money - I guess in that regard the war has been successful.

Not too long ago I said to a friend (only half way jokingly) that what we should do to get ourselves out of this mess is to return Saddam Hussein to power. I know he was a brutal, evil dictator, but damn it at least when he was in power the country wasn't in total chaos and utter disarray. I think bush* co. have absolutely no idea what they are doing or what they are going to do next, and they are sure as hell too stubborn to listen to advice from anyone not in "the circle".

[TayTay]

4. It's ust so tragic.

I want to hear what Kerry has to say on this. I am NOT expecting a magical speech that will sudenly show what we should do to get out. It's just too much of a f*ckup for anyone to make sense out of it.

What I want from Kerry and any speech he makes is just a realisitic assessment of what our goals can be; including withdrawal. Sigh! I just thing the Bush Admin has pissed off too many allies and proved just too incompetent to do anything positive in Iraq at all. And I really want to know what Kerry thinks. He has all that experience in foreign policy, he is a 'big thinker' on global issues and I just want to hear someone speak with some knowledge of reality over there.

[whometense]

8. I've been teetering too.

What pushed me over the edge was hearing Tom Oliphant on Al Franken the other day. I'm more and more believing that not only can't we help, but that our very presence is aggravating everything.

For me it comes down to one thought: if I were Iraqi and I had lived through this war and now had no water, electricity, etc, and yet saw millions of dollars being poured into construction of a big fancy permanent American base, I might be feeling a lot of anger myself.

[TayTay]

5. Iraq Article in LA Times 10/9/05 Things are getting worse

http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-disconnect9oct09,0,2475208.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Democracy's Power Fades as Iraq Panacea
Some officials doubt the White House view that political progress can end the insurgency. Acrimony reigns as referendum nears.

By Tyler Marshall and Louise Roug, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Senior U.S. officials have begun to question a key presumption of American strategy in Iraq: that establishing democracy there can erode and ultimately eradicate the insurgency gripping the country.

The expectation that political progress would bring stability has been fundamental to the Bush administration's approach to rebuilding Iraq as well as a central theme of White House rhetoric to convince the American public that its policy in Iraq remains on course.

But within the last two months, U.S. analysts with access to classified intelligence data have started to challenge this precept, noting a "significant and disturbing disconnect" between apparent advances on the political front and any progress in reducing insurgent attacks.

Now, with next Saturday's constitutional referendum appearing more likely to divide than unify the country, some within the Bush administration have concluded that the quest for democracy in Iraq, at least in its current form, could actually strengthen the guerrillas.

[sandnsea]

6. Very discouraging

It's just like New Orleans when they put getting looters ahead of saving people. I guess this is what happens when the big picture is missing. I think it's a basic thinking error on the part of our military and law enforcement types. I would suppose we lost this thing the first time we put plastic cuffs on little kids. It's not militarily logical to stop fighting a war in order to win it, but that's what we need to do over there. Stop fighting the few in order to win over the many. That's just not how ego and superiority thinking works though.

[TayTay]

7. It goes back to the very beginning of the war

These neocons really thought they were going to completely change Iraq and install a US friendly government in six months. They really belived that US troops would be universally greeted with chocolates and flowers, that the country would allow an orderly change of rulers and that the US could get out in six months. There plans called for a small/medium size troop buildup in the iniital stage of 150,000 troops and that they would be down to under 60,000 six months later.

They had no plans for what to do if a resistance movement started up. Hell, they didn't even consider that people might loot for things to use or sell (during war time? Duh!)

Rethugs can't govern. They can't govern at home because they hate government and want everything transferred to private enterprise. They can't govern abroad because they hate nation-building and lack the basic skill set to achieve anything in nation-building.

I long for the grown-ups to get here and start the long job of making things better. But the grown-ups won't get here for awhile yet. Sigh!

[TayTay]

9. Did you read Carl Levin's Iraq colum in WaPo today?

Very interesting. He proposes that the US switch the question around from 'How does being in Iraq help the US by preventing more terror attacks on the US' to 'The Iraqis need us more than we need them.' Interesting take on the whole thing. I like this.

Levin OpEd

There is, however, one point on which leaders of the three main groups in Iraq agree: None of the Iraqi groups wants U.S. troops to leave precipitately. The Shiites want us to stay until Iraqi security forces are strong enough to deal with the insurgency on their own. The Kurds want us to remain for the impending future. And the Sunni Arab leaders want us to stay as a deterrent to those who might seek revenge against them for the actions of Saddam Hussein.

We must use that leverage -- the possibility of an American withdrawal -- to achieve the broad-based political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency.

I believe that if the Iraqis fail to reach a political solution by the end of the year we must consider a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces. This does not mean setting a date now for departure. It simply means conveying clearly and forcefully to Iraqis that the presence of our forces is not indefinite and that our staying there requires them to come together politically, since Iraqi unity offers the only hope of defeating the insurgency.

The administration has been sending the opposite messages with repeated statements that we will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed. We should not mislead the Iraqis into thinking they have unlimited time to reach a settlement. As long as they think that way, they are less likely to make the necessary compromises. Gen. Casey acknowledged that that message is not being communicated forcefully to Iraqis.

[paulk]

10. Condi Rice on 10/10/05 - Princeton University

"We have set out to help the people of the Middle East transform their societies. Now is not the time to falter or fade."

The Bush admin. has not made any changes in their thinking. It's still PNAC full steam ahead...

[ginnyinWI]

11. Gary Wills

Ever heard of him? He is apparently a historian and biographer--just came out with a bio of Henry Adams called Henry Adams and the Making of America. I saw him on Tueday's Charlie Rose.

Anyway, chalk up another vote for "out now" from him. I always like to hear what historians say, because they offer so much perspective. He says that no matter when we leave, sooner or later, what will happen next is a civil war for power in Iraq among the factions, and most likely a breakup of the country. So he says it's better to leave now and stop the needless loss of more of our troops and treasure.