IceCold

Do you think the USA would ever have gotten its independence from England if the entire nation (with the exception of a few sympathizers) hadn't unified behind the effort?

How do you think we would have done in World War II without the nation unifying behind the war effort?

We see what happened in Vietnam and we see what is happening now that the American people, for some reason, are beginning to want their nation to lose wars.

Dissent is great, but don't root for the other team!

__________________

Steeler

It didn't. In fact there was a tremendous amount of territorial infighting, a sharp division between colonials and loyalists, and only the most rudimentary forms of coordination between widely dispersed forces. Politically, most of the basic conflicts of the day - such as the role of the military in civilian life, the strength of the federal government over the states, and our voting process - are still with us today. Yet here we are.
A desperately poor US population largely beholden to the government for its paychecks, motivated by a clear and visible global threat, engaged in a total industrialized war of nations. Nothing since then compares, nor should we pray for a conflict that does.
Similar situation, wrong lesson. We didn't lose Vietnam because we left, we left because we had already lost it years before.
What was that about hyperbole?

__________________

IceCold

Call it what you will.

If US forces are removed from Iraq prematurely, Al Queda wins. Do you disagree?

__________________

Steeler

Yes.

__________________

IceCold

I don't think you can boil our disagreement down any further than that, then.

__________________

Steeler

If and when we leave Iraq, the Sunnis will pretty much slit the throats of any Al Qaeda operating in their areas, just as they have been doing for the past 2 years or so. The real problem with us leaving is our inability to prevent a) a true factional civil war from breaking out, b) a Shiite dominated central government with ties to Iran rising, and c) a total collapse of civic infrastructure for the foreseeable future. Worse, all of these things may happen gradually over the next decade even if we were to keep 200k+ forces in theater.

So the one thing I'm not really worried about is Al Qaeda. They remain a fringe element to the conflict. If we want to combat that threat directly, there are other ways to direct our resources to doing so.

__________________

Buckets

Al Queda won when the US entered Iraq under blatantly false pretense. Iraq has become a great place to recruit people who are angry with the United States for making conditions in their country even worse and has nurtured the perception that the US is at war with their religion and culture. Al Queda won when Rumsfeld and co. sent inadequate forces into Afghanistan and failed to give the military they needed to actually eradicate the Taliban and Al Queda from their base of operations. Al Queda won when people who questioned the motives and intentions of our corrupt leaders were characterized as traitors and cowards. As fatalistic as it sounds, I think our adventure in Iraq set us back a number of years in our "war on terror." The ineptitude of our elected officials has done little besides help out enemies.

George W. Bush and his cohorts have done more damage to our country than any terrorist group could ever accomplish on their own. It will take many years to reverse the damage done by this administration.

__________________
The artist formerly known as "pecker"

UnDeaD77

Agreed...

__________________

section-8

BINGO. Thanks Cing... glad you said it.

__________________

AMosely

Petraeus and Crocker are back on Capitol Hill today on their obligatory visit to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

His description of the Iraqi operation in Basra, I think, can be applied to the Iraq war as a whole.

I'd really like to see some congressional hearings on how we can safeguard against obsessive and reckless executives (in this case the Vice President and Secretary of Defense) marching the country in to war on false intel and without any clear plans for anything.

Kerostasis

Well, that question's easy: Just elect better executives!

Unfortunately, that's easier said than done these days. =/

__________________

leejo

You mean for a Congressional Committee to come up with stuff like elections and separation of powers? I think that's an excellent use of their time.

Maybe Congress could recommend that the People only elect executives you like.

Steeler

I was surprised (well, not really) that no one has yet discussed the role that Iran has played in the current fighting. Apparently they brokered the Basra cease-fire at the behest of Maliki's government, not Al-Sadr's. That doesn't bode well for the reliability of the central government we're sponsoring. Today's testimony seems ill-timed as well, given that the fighting is still going on in Baghdad and things may tip over into heavy sectarian violence again in the next few days. We'll just have to wait and see.

__________________

AMosely

It's not a question of liking or disliking the executives. It's the poor policy decisions they made that are now open and on the table : the cooked intelligence (Cheney), the failed backing of the INC and Chalabi without an alternative (Cheney, Wolfowitz), the undercutting of US troops and collective lack of a post-war strategy other than fast withdrawal (Rumsfeld), and the appointment J. Paul Bremer, whose failed or missing policies directly contributed to the insurgency that continues to fight to this day, and is making the war unwinnable in the forseeable future.

While much of that list used to be written off as opinion, it's becoming cemented as fact - unless you have evidence showing otherwise. This war should either not have been started or should have been executed with twice as many troops carrying a solid plan for occupation. Instead, you have what you have today. I would like my government to tell me how, even theoretically, this can be prevented from ever happening again.

I heard plenty of mention of Iran. Their role in this is obvious at this point. It's going to be very difficult for the US to manage their role in this conflict in years to come, because in many ways the battle has shifted to a proxy war between the US and Iran/Hezbollah. I wonder, did Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz ever have this in mind?

leejo

Huh? Who said you get to set the rules here? You have your opinion and I have mine. The end.


Your opinion

"This"? You mean undertaking a policy with which you disagree? No can do.

I would like my government to have the balls to stand behind decisions they make. This military operation was years in the making, was authorized by congress, and executed with broad public support.

I would like my government to cut my taxes, enforce the immigration laws on the books, make the War On Drugs sane, privatize social security, get out of healthcare entirely, etc., so I guess we're both doomed to disappointment.

I think people forget who has the $13 Trillion economy and who is pretty much in the poor house. Iran can certainly be a pain in the rear, but we can be the mother of all jerks to them too. But maybe this sort of long-term low burn you describe is why Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz called this "the long war".