From Urbanagora, a question that has been percolating around the blogosphere for the past week or so:
Forget everything else, the Democratic contenders are going to hit Iraq long and hard during the upcoming elections. Built on their mandate (which was hardly a mandate when you consider they have a one seat majority in the Senate after two incredibly tight races where the Democrats squeaked out a victory), the Democrats believe that Iraq will lead the way. We are in a war that cannot be won and are driving away our allies.
But, consider the inconsiderable: what happens if Iraq turns around?
Say what you will on the surge. No, literally, say what you will say. I cannot honestly assess how well the surge is working as I am (a) not on the ground and (b) depending on the news source, it is either going unimaginably well or absolutely horrible. But it has to be doing at least all right, because in the past week, leading Democrats (Reid, Clinton, etc.) started hedging their statements with the equivalent of “the surge is producing measurable results, but too late.” That sounds to me like the surge is doing more than being just another drop in the bucket, if Democrats have to admit improvement.
If the surge works, what are the political implications? Why is the Washington Post already running headlines ("Democratic Rivals Caution Against Swift Iraq Pullout") that were unimaginable 90 days ago?
If the surge works we need to re-double our efforts. Restart the Draft and let Iran know we'll put boots on the ground there if we need to.
Rush has been on this for months. The Dems are invested in the defeat of the US in Iraq. A win will destroy them.
The best thing that could possibly happen for Democrats is if the Iraq War goes extremely well and can be wrapped up by November '08. Can you imagine if Barack Obama was allowed to discuss something besides his "qualifications as Commander-In-Chief"? Almost every major domestic issue favors Democrats, from universal health care to environmental protections, to gas prices.
Yesterday Derf Thompson came out talking about gun control in NYC, as if the drop in homicides would have happened without gun control? Wow. What an issue to resonate with John and Jane Taxpayer. Yeesh!
Face it. The Republican platform sucks in general. Stasis in Iraq (win? please.) will only allow the debate to shift to Democratic strengths.
Now that is some interesting spin.
Do conservatives seriously think that the American people, if faced with some sort of truce in Iraq, will suddenly turn around a throw wet kisses on Mr. Bush? One of the great fallacies of the political environment since last fall is that Democrats won because of Iraq alone. Iraq was important, but the overall approach to government that has been put forth by Republicans since they gained power is another cause of Democratic success. How else do you reconcile the fact that Congress has such low approval ratings, yet most Americans still side with the Dems on most domestic issues?
Think about Katrina, think about universal health care, think about the environment, gas prices, extreme maldistribution of wealth. The reality is that Republicans ideas are losing in the political marketplace. It isn't just Iraq. The fact is, the more iraq is in the headlines, the more people have to start to wonder who can get them out of Iraq. That is a foreign policy question and it is one of the few areas where Republicans have strength.
You don't have to believe me, but it's true: Democrats have new ideas that appeal to a broad array of Americans. Republicans have fear and gun control. Oh, and savings accounts so you can pay the doctor out of your own pocket. Without Iraq, without terrorism, you folks got nothing.
"Now that is some interesting spin."
And yet, strangely compelling. Terror and national security have been nearly the only issues the public consistently has favored Republicans on almost since 9-11. Take them off the table and maybe Bush loses in 2004. On the other hand, maybe Kerry wouldn't even have been the candidate, so who knows what we would have had on the Dem ticket.
The question is, if we "win" in Iraq and get mostly out by November '08, does that translate into good will for Republicans or does the focus shift entirely? George H. W. Bush clearly won the first Gulf War, and then turned around and lost to Clinton because both the hot and cold wars were over and it was "the economy, stupid!"
You know, in all seriousness, let me ask you fellas this: What do Republicans have to offer in '08 as far as domestic policy ideas? Forget the War of Terror for a minute and just give me a couple of winning ideas that you can see Derf or Mitt or Giuliani selling to the average citizen in a debate. Extension of tax cuts? Drilling in the Arctic? Health savings accounts? What do you think?
Interesting - It is good to hear you Dems on board for winning in Iraq.
Domestic agenda items:
Well IP, just what is the Republican platform, what are the issues, except national security?
NCLB, smaller more efficient government, aid for infrastructure, lower taxes for regular folks? Nope. Not Republican values, at least not anymore.
Immigration? Isn't that the same thing as national security. and building walls on the Mexican border doesn't cut it. Neither does requiring passports for travel to Mexico and Canada, and then not being able to process passport applications ("we didn't see it coming!").
That is the problem of this administration, and Republicans in general. Not being progressive, rather, regressive, they never "see it coming". (Snark attack: couldn't even see a Hurricane coming!)
So what do the Republicans have to offer Joe and Jane Sixpack?
"You know, in all seriousness, let me ask you fellas this: What do Republicans have to offer in '08 as far as domestic policy ideas? Forget the War of Terror for a minute and just give me a couple of winning ideas that you can see Derf or Mitt or Giuliani selling to the average citizen in a debate. Extension of tax cuts? Drilling in the Arctic? Health savings accounts? What do you think?"
Playing with hypotheticals, you have to concede that if Iraq goes well, all of the statements by the Democrats about how the War was lost are going to make people question their judgement, and not just about foreign policy. Especially for Obama, who has been using his foresight against Iraq to hammer the other Democrats for months. And as a side issue, what does success in Iraq do to the netroots? Do they remain as motivated for Democratic candidates who will by trying to take credit for success in Iraq? Does success in Iraq cause the Dem frontrunners to want to distance themselves from the anti-war netroots?
As for compelling domestic issues for the GOP in 2008? Border security and illegal immigration. Tax cuts and a booming economy. Energy. Free trade. Gun control. Anti single-payer health care. Affirmative action. Judges.
I'm not saying that the GOP will take advantage of any or all of these, but there are certainly opportunities there. And the foreign policy issues are just as compelling - Iran, for starters.
A few months ago, Iraq was universally acknowledged to be a huge albatross around the neck of the GOP for 2008. Most would concede that if things are markedly improved there, it will be a positive development for the GOP.
and let me add this - a "win" in Iraq does not take national security off the table. It highlights the differences in the parties.
Which voters won't think to themselves - "gosh, if the Dems had had their way, where would we be now?" And, will the issues with Iran and N. Korea just suddenly dissappear? Terrorists just quit trying?
The immigration issue is about more than security, anon. It is a joe 6 pack issue. Illegals drive down wages and require services. And they also just get under the skin of folks that care about the rule of law in this country.
A better question is: What happens if Iraq doesn't go well? Gen Petraeus does not have the best reputation as he caught a lot of heat from the Pentagon by failing to set up a tracking system for the weapons he distributed to the Iraq army and police. His report better be verifiable----Remember "In God we trust"---everyone else bring data.
Really interesting thread with plenty of grist for both sides. Nice choice, IP.
But before we get too far ahead of ourselves, does anyone care to tackle the definition of a "win" in Iraq? Although it may shock and amaze you, I would certainly hope our efforts produce some lasting positive effects, if for no other reason than lives are being lost every day. But what are the real goals -- the practical ones, I mean?
By the way, in response to "The Dems are invested in the defeat of the US in Iraq. A win will destroy them.", I completely disagree. A defeat (another outcome in need of a definition) no longer serves anyone's purposes, if you care to look at it so pragmatically. With the Democrats in control of Congress, don't you believe the public thinks it's high time for them to do something about the war? That's not even the only issue, but it's a good place to start.
A defeat never served anyone's purposes. Whoever takes over after Bush is going to have to clean up this mess one way or the other. GW and his cronies will be somewhere in Texas saying they would have done things differently, conservatives on this blog and elsewhere will be blaming the new (probably Dem) President for "losing the war" - the legacy will be mixed. It is better for everyone if Iraq is resolved one way or the other before 1-20-09.
That said, I think Obama's speech to the VFW yesterday hits the nail on the head, in a way that (dare I say it?) none of the other Dem candidates have managed to do. He acknowledges that there is and will be military success in Iraq due to the surge, but the surge is not the point - the political process is the point. Unless the diplomacy starts to work (surge?) there is no victory obtainable.
Does anyone dispute this notion? I certainly don't, and it is interesting to me that with all the "experience" sitting in the WH right now they can't seem to grasp the notion that the war will not be won with bombs and tanks.
Which is all a long way of saying that I think the Dems continue to have the advantage on Iraq because they have the luxury of distance. They can see the issues and see what needs to be done, but they are not responsible for doing it. Iraq will most likely not resolve one way or the other by 11-08, and will continue to play to the Dems favor. But what is more interesting is that when asked to come up with domestic ideas that Republicans can run on we get a list that shows how out-of-touch the GOP actually is.
Actually it looks like IP got it from Urbanagora but I would agree with you "and now for some" this is an interesting thread. I don't think the war on Terror will be over by the election of 2008. Things in Iraq will probably be doing better in Iraq, but the terrorists are in more parts of the world then the Middle East, Iran and Syria are not really friends of ours.
I think taxes and spending are and will be big issues locally and nationally. I also think jobs will become a bigger issue as well as imports as the questions of what hazardous materials we are receiving from China become bigger issues.
By the way, in response to "The Dems are invested in the defeat of the US in Iraq. A win will destroy them.", I completely disagree. A defeat (another outcome in need of a definition) no longer serves anyone's purposes, if you care to look at it so pragmatically. With the Democrats in control of Congress, don't you believe the public thinks it's high time for them to do something about the war?
The Dems are saying 'we can't win, pull the troops out now.' Other than Ron Paul, I don't hear that coming from the GOP candidates. So, in Nov. 08, if it looks like we can't win, which party looks smarter? Nobody is going to pin the war on the Dem Congress (except Sheehan apparently).
Here is the Dem victory speech: "I told Bush to get out - he wouldn't do it, and x more soldiers died needlessly. Now I will make the tough decision, and work to get us out as soon as possible, and leave Iraq to work it out on its own."
Face it, the US military ain't what it used to be. It kicked butt in Granada and Panama (2 world powers to be sure) but fought to a losiing tie in Korea (North Korea still exists, doesn't it?) got its ass kcked in Viet Nam (what's the capital's name? Oh, Ho Chi Mihn City) Somalia, and now can't win a war in Iraq of all places.
it's not the American will to win that is at issue, it's the incompetence of the military command, now lead by the most incompetent Commander in Chief since Hitler.
Here is the real question: WHY can't we win in Iraq? Answer: because we are incapable of winning with the team we are fielding. Soldiers used to have a noble cause, and even with the draft at least the felons, gangbangers, and mentally deficient didn't get in the military. Many soldiers are good and decent people, good Americans, good soldiers, but waaaaay too many are street thugs, or worse. Potically, this pres would never restart the draft but without it he is forced to take the dregs into the service.
Bush is a coward and a bully at the same time, as most bullys are.
Even if the U.S. military managed to kill every single member of Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia that still wouldn't solve the sectarian issues or prevent full-scale civil war once our boys leave. That's the problem with a narrow conception of victory. Without political progress (which there appears to be little of) all the military progress means bunk.
"But what is more interesting is that when asked to come up with domestic ideas that Republicans can run on we get a list that shows how out-of-touch the GOP actually is."
- GOP candidates will be running on the on the idea of returning the conservative principles regarding domestic policies which have been largely ignored during the Bush terms: Simplifying the tax code, reducing pork spending, securing the borders, protecting the second amendment, appointing/nominating constitutionalist judges, domestic energy production, school vouchers, increased state and local control/authority, market based healthcare reforms, and balanced budgets. Considering the liberal love-fest with high taxes, big government, and bureaucratic authority, I can see how they would consider those ideas to be "out-of-touch".
Ah yes, the progressive vitriol has finally-and anonymously-made it into the comment thread at 1:19 p.m. Congratulations, brave, brave, brave sir Anonymous. I should ignore you like everyone else, but for the record, everything you proffer as as accepted fact-isn't. In the hopes that you are just ill-informed and not congenitally dumb, I will point out that nations fight wars using all of the elements of national power. Military forces fight battles and campaigns. When South Vietnam fell, there were no American military forces engaged in combat. They had been pulled out for some time. Should America be blamed for the loss-you bet. It was our elected, Democratic congress which pulled the financial plug on the ARVN while our cold war opponents supported the NVA.
I could blather on about the quality of the volunteer military, asymmetric warfare, how the left in America is invested in a military defeat and that Iraq is not a lost cause. It would probably be a waste of my time and yours because you won't allow anything like a reasoned argument to interfere with your certainty.
I do want to thank you for coming out and showing your true colors. I have always said that most on the far left are being disingenuous when they say, "we support the troops."
I'll be sure to tell my felonious, gang-banging, mentally deficient buddies that you said "hi" and that you support us. :-D
A conventional war is one thing, a thing of the past, I hope. Otherwise it will be an ugly ugly thing. Guerilla warfare is something entirely different. Street to street, house to house fighting is extremely dangerous, our patrols are highy exposed. The enemy hides within the civilian population, and you want an easy victory, it is'nt in the cards. Our military is the best trained, most well equipped group of fighters on the planet, bar none.
It is not the will of the people that we hear, no, we hear the will of the unified propaganda machine, those who have bought into the political game of stalemate and gridlock to the detriment of our country and our soldiers. The left is living the lie. DIALOGUE WITH IRAN! Dialogue with those who want you dead, who laugh at you for sitting with them, get real. Keep throwing out your talking points, Bush lied and people died, blah blah blah. Your overwhelming mandate is based on the simplest majority, what a twist of reality. Seventy percent of the population wants the war to end. One hundred percent of sane people want it to end. How many want to see us walk and Iraq implode, zero. That stat is a joke, a misrepresentation of words. The ultimate hypocracy--pull our boys out so that hundreds to thousands don't die, they are more important than the hundreds of thousands of Iraquis that will die upon a swift retreat. tolerance and diversity, all are equal within our borders, yet over there you leftist would have us leave them to fend against a barbaric onslaught.
There is no easy way out of the Middle East, might not be such a bad thing in time. Seeing how our enemies keep coming in to take us on, it does seem to be better than in my back yard. (talking point)
Iraq will only have "gone well" if about 500,000 Iraqis and 4,000 Americans are extracted from their graves and given life again by God, Allah, or American technological prowess. If that doesn't happen, then asking whether Iraq "went well" will be just one more absurd insult to the victims of the thoughtless, evil selfishness of too many Americans.
It's like asking whether recent improvements in airplane and port security---or even post 9-11 efforts by the US to "win hearts" in poor countries by digging wells etc.---mean that 9-11 "went well." I don't think so.
That's the longer answer; but of couse there's a shorter and even more worrying answer to what will happen if the Bush admin can convince enough American suckers that Iraq was a noble success and proof of American wonderfulness:
Iran.
Given the chance, the rabid flag-wavers will keep on killing until all the fear dissappears from the pits of their bellies. Needless to say this will never occur.
Iraq will only have "gone well" if about 500,000 Iraqis and 4,000 Americans are extracted from their graves and given life again by God, Allah, or American technological prowess.
So under that standard, all wars are failures, right?
"If that doesn't happen, then asking whether Iraq "went well" will be just one more absurd insult to the victims of the thoughtless, evil selfishness of too many Americans."
Just trying to clarify if I should feel insulted or not: am I thoughtless or selfish or evil (or all three) for daring to ask the question?
"Iraq will only have "gone well" if about 500,000 Iraqis and 4,000 Americans are extracted from their graves and given life again by God, Allah, or American technological prowess."
- By Interloper's logic, WWI and WWII would be considered American failures since the loss of soldier and civilian life was so incredibly high.
"- GOP candidates will be running on the on the idea of returning the conservative principles regarding domestic policies which have been largely ignored during the Bush terms: Simplifying the tax code, reducing pork spending, securing the borders, protecting the second amendment, appointing/nominating constitutionalist judges, domestic energy production, school vouchers, increased state and local control/authority, market based healthcare reforms, and balanced budgets. "
If this is the basis for the GOP candidates in 2008 there will not be too many current GOP congressional people running again.
we need a presidential candidate to lead this charge - someone who actually believes in conservatism.
'Loper
"Iraq will only have "gone well" if about 500,000 Iraqis".....
This includes the roughly 400,000 Iraqis that Saddam murdered right? Or are you still peddling that joke of a study the Lancet put out that only hardore progressives cling to?
Just reporting that the addition of a stack of temporary troops have managed to slow down the death toll for a few months does *not* mean "Iraq is going well". Iraqis standing up and cleaning up their *own* country is "Iraq doing well", and anything less than that changes nothing. It they can't manage their own country after all this time (or at least pick up the pieces after we've screwed it up) then we have made *no* progress, and another 10 years will not get us any closer to Mission Accomplished.
The Surge means nothing, and Dems taking the concept seriously is *pointless*, and shooting themselves in the foot.
The management of Iraq has been screwed from the get-go, and no amount of Extra American Police is gonna make a Damn Bit if difference until Iraqis step up.
Unless there is an Iraqi Surge, we need to get the hell out of there, and *fast*.
CheapEngineer
The point of the surge is to give time to the elected Iraqi government to get it's political house in order and to provide time to stand-up, train and assess new Iraqi military units and capabilities, as well as the other security forces. Read the news. Iraqi's are standing up and taking charge of their country.
Having said that, there will not be a perfect peace for years to come. We can still start withdrawing, once we have achieved certain milestones.
In 2003 we knew we would be in Iraq for several years. It's only the ignorant who are trying to sell the notion that we should have been done in 2003 and any time after that is failure.
Sorry, I'm not buying that spin-I know better.
The point of the surge is to give time to the elected Iraqi government to get it's political house in order and to provide time to stand-up, train and assess new Iraqi military units and capabilities, as well as the other security forces.
I know what the advertised "point" of the Surge is, and I understand the concept behind it. This *might* have worked, had it been done about 2 1/2 years ago, when there still was a shred of Iraq left to rebuild. Second, this "Surge" is too small, and too short to have any real impact in taking the load off of Iraqi Military/Police "While they come up to speed". That speed should have been reached over a year ago. Time's Up.
Read the news. Iraqi's are standing up and taking charge of their country.
I read the news. You mean, the "Liberal MSM" that constantly distorts the truth, sides with the Enemy, and keeps from Winning the War? The only sign of Iraq standing up and taking charge is al-Malaki, who said this;
Iraq’s prime minister lashed out Wednesday at U.S. criticism, saying no one has the right to impose timetables on his elected government and that his country “can find friends elsewhere.”
Having said that, there will not be a perfect peace for years to come. We can still start withdrawing, once we have achieved certain milestones.
In 2003 we knew we would be in Iraq for several years. It's only the ignorant who are trying to sell the notion that we should have been done in 2003 and any time after that is failure.
Check your math, above. It's 2007 - it *has* been "several years", and we are still in the same handbasket. BTW, the milestones that need to be achieved are *Iraq's*, not ours. The latest story was "We'll keep the peace, while Iraqi's setup a government and build an Army/police force".
The Police force will *never* be effective until they have no choice but to get their %@#&! together. Right now, they don't have to.
There could have been a stable army, police force, and 80% of a government (you know, the clerks and people who actually get things DONE?) if Bremer hadn't dis-banded all of the above, because he and the administration didn't like the name Baath. Picking up the pieces after the brain and heart of Iraq have been removed has proven itself impossible, and it's only getting worse. The only way to kick-start Iraq is to cut off Life Support.
Sorry, I'm not buying that spin-I know better.
From reading the above, all I can observe is that you have had a stiff drink of the Kool-Aid, and think you can lecture the rest of the country. I have made an attempt not to treat your comments with the unvarnished contempt you have given mine. If I have failed, it must just be my Ignorance.
CheapEngineer
Anonymous, please find an identity, because I have no idea if my comments address one or more of you,
"and it is interesting to me that with all the "experience" sitting in the WH right now they can't seem to grasp the notion that the war will not be won with bombs and tanks. "
"Obama's speech...there is and will be military success in Iraq due to the surge, but the surge is not the point - the political process is the point. Unless the diplomacy starts to work (surge?) there is no victory obtainable"
Show me where you get your information that our current WH is only instered in winning with bombs and tanks. This WH has continually pressed for the Iraqi government and military to stand up.
"it's not the American will to win that is at issue, it's the incompetence of the military command, now lead by the most incompetent Commander in Chief since..."
I would suggest that our military is doing an amazing job in Iraq considering how carefully they have to wage this war in an incredibly one-sided politically correct execution against an enemy who uses any underhanded tactic that they can dream up. If there are questions about the competence of how this war has been waged, it would be a combination of the anti-war left and the win-at-all-costs right. Neither of which has something to smile at.
Again, I would suggest reading Obama's speech from the VFW yesterday. The surge may be working fine and dandy, but then what? Are we going to leave the extra troops in country for the forseeable future? Does anyone really believe the Iraqi Army will be able to pull the same weight as our men and women in uniform any time soon?
No, the surge is a band-aid on a gaping wound. Even if it is working, it is not sustainable.
But, really - I encourage all my Republican friends to get out their and start waving those "Privatize Social Security!" and "More Tax Cuts!" banners pronto. That'll sure getting the voters swinging your way!
Ha!
What happens when Bush -- in the midst of a mess he created in Iraq -- attacks Iran?
www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/22/3330/
BTW, the capitol of Vietnam is Hanoi.
The stab-in-the-back narrative (Kevin Baker, Harper's, June 2006) is a coward's excuse for failure. It was invented by one Hermann Goering back in WWI. This is Bush's mess in Iraq. He gets responsibility for it, because he's the President. The blame rests with him, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfowitz, and all the neocon chickenhawk fools who started this mess. Blaming others is spineless.
I say bring back the draft and stick to the constitution. In particular, that means article I, section 8.
What the hell does "win" mean in this context? It is simply not defined. It never has been, really. Did the French win at Algiers? Did the British win in Malaysia? Did we win 40-some years after the Spanish-American war (1898) when the Phillipines finally became independent in 1945? Define what win means, or else this whole discussion is rather meaningless.
Cheap Engineer--Good thing your just a poster on a blog and we are not going by your "Times Up" time line, luckily others are in charge.
Even if privately we don't intend to leave until we think they can take over - we *should* be Publicly shouting from the rooftops "We're outa here". If we continue to tell Iraq that we'll hang around until they get around to cleaning up their country, it will never happen. The greatest pressure we can bear upon the Iraqi people is "We're about to leave now, and leave this f'ing mess to whoever wants it".
Then, if the Iraqi people have any desire to govern themselves, they will be forced to do so.
The Iraqi people have no experience governing themselves in recent memory, and can't be expected to just Jump Right In and have at it, like we would. We are *used* to Democracy, and having a real say in our governments.
People need to stop treating the Iraqi people as if they lived in Minnesota Last week, and just need a helping hand.
Run4, the group of Boneheads "in charge' have taken this opportunity to introduce Democracy to a part of the middle east that could actually handle it, and screwed it up at absolutely every single turn and have messed up every single decision along the way. There is absolutely nothing I can imagine happening in Iraq that would make me believe anything the Bush administration says from this moment on.
Understand, I'm not saying I think a democratic administration would/could have done any better. What I think about that doesn't matter. The facts are, this group has squandered it's chance to do something good, and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
I'm not a politician, not a military expert, nor a Conservative Pundit. But I am intelligent enough to recognize a screwup of monstrous proportions, and this one stinks to high heaven.
CheapEngineer
If the war in Iraq goes well, then we say, "Well, thank God our boys and girls in the military's sacrifices bailed us out of a horrible decision process and the horrendous planning of our current regime. And thank God that group of lowlifes finally came up with a good plan. Too bad that due to their ignorance or laziness or both, it came too late to save thousands of lives."
I don't think there are too many people who are hoping we lose the war. It'd also be nice if people could accept that "we are losing" is an honest appraisal by a patriotic American and not a traitor's declaration.
I cannot fathom how we are losing this war, except in our national will. Again, nations wage wars. Armies fight battles. We aren't losing the battles, so if we're losing the war, it's because our national will is at the shopping mall.
Cheap Engineer says the surge is too short and not enough troops. It's kind of a silly thing to say, especially since the surge is ongoing. I suspect that CE called it a failure before the surge even began. More troops in Iraq doesn't not scale linearly to a quicker victory. What the surge is doing is taking the fight to the terrorists instead of sitting in the FOBs, being afraid of offending the Iraqis and offering static targets for hit and run attacks. It also includes fresh approaches to the Sunni Arabs who have been the most reluctant to enter the political process and provide the non-AQ part of the insurgency. The new approaches seem to be working. Just look at Ramadi and Fallujah and other parts of Anbar province. You know, the place were we could never "win" said the naysayers.
Some say the war is a failure because Iraq is in ruins. NEWSFLASH gents-Iraq was in ruins under Saddam and it's going to take years and years to repair and invest in infrastructure. There have been some remarkable improvements made, but much still remains. At the same time, 28 million people aren't eating sand, aren't sitting naked in the heat without shelter and water, nor are they being slaughtered like sheep by U.S. and coalition forces.
Reading the posts from the defeatists seems to suggest that they believe Iraq isn't stable anywhere. That is categorically false. Most of Iraq is relatively quiet. Baghdad and the areas to the immediate north and south are the most restive. It's going to be like that because most MSM sit on their lazy keisters in the green zone, using Arab stringers who may, or may not, have an ulterior agenda. Reporting from independent embeds, military bloggers on the ground and soldiers communicating back to their families paint substantially different pictures. I'm not saying it's all rosy in Iraq-it isn't. However, no war is ever easy. There have been setbacks in all of our wars and campaigns. Why do Americans think that war should last the length of a TV sitcom with commercials? It's going to take time some more time to give Iraq the chance it deserves.
Iraq may yet become a failed state. They are certainly getting help from the Saudi extremists, other foreign jihadis and the IRGC. On the flip side, France wants to reengage in Iraq and assist our effort politically. It's amazing what voting out a bunch of socialists can do for a country.
Some of the commenters, like Cheap Engineer, bemoan the lack of Saddam's Baathist army and police forces as a base for the new Iraq Army, saying that Bremer's at fault. Bremer didn't have to disband the Iraqi Army, it disappeared on its own. The only ones left were Saddam's Special Republican Guard, some Republican Guard units, and the thugs which Uday called the Fedayeen. Most of the Army were conscripts and they left their posts in quick order. As for de-Baathification, it's what Iraq needed. 85% of the country didn't need the Sunni Arab Baatth party in charge again. Had we kept the Baathists in power we would have had the majority of the country against us.
Cheap Engineer thinks I "had a stiff drink of the Kool-Aid" because I'm not in lock step with the glitterati who, with the benefit of no experience and no expertise, nonetheless know-it -all about the situation in Iraq. I won't say I know it all, but I do know more about Iraq than most. I ate my share of the sand(silt), and served my time over there. In addition to having access to the war plans, the intelligence, and first hand observation, I've worked with Arab militaries, studied Arab culture and Islam, and have two degrees in political science and international relations with emphases on the Middle East, terrorism and national security. If that's what you consider drinking the Kool-Aid and being a mindless cog in the neocon conspiracy, then I'm guilty as charged........
"We aren't losing the battles, so if we're losing the war, it's because our national will is at the shopping mall. " its NOT A WAR so we cannot lose it. Unless you live in a box, it is a GWB invasion based upon lies. He has killed over 3k US soldiers for nothing.
What the hell does "win" mean in this context? It is simply not defined. It never has been, really.
Nadin, "win", or "going well", in this context, means the voters perception. Was this worth the effort? Does the US have a chance of accomplishing anything other than kicking out Saddam and then leaving the country to civil war? If the voters think "yes", I think it is bad for Dems. "No" is good for them.
And I don't think all of us are talking about the "stab in the back" narrative. It is just that the Dems are positioned to win politically if the war is a failure.
"it is a GWB invasion based upon lies. He has killed over 3k US soldiers for nothing."
Now that's drinking the cool-aid and spouting off progressive talking points. If that is your point of reference then there is absolutely nothing anyone can say for you to consider let alone change your mind. Should we happen to complete military activities in Iraq and be able to pull out before the end of next year you will still spout off that we went in based on lies. Stop reading reading the Common dreams, Counterpunch, MoveOn propaganda and lies.
Should we begin seeing positives from Iraq and are able to withdraw some troops ahead of the election next year those Dems that are continually threatened by the progressives will still lament the loss of life and frame it as needless, keep shouting the 'Bush Lied, Thousands died' meme and keep pushing for impeachment, etc. You see it on this thread by the progressives who do not want to see us succeed in Iraq as well as stated by some Democratic Congressmen. When the issue of Iraq comes off the table then what do the Dems do? They have offered no alternatives, but stand back like cowards and throw barbs at the administration feeding falsehoods and exaggerations to the American people with righteous indignation. The concern among the senior Democratic leadership maybe two fold. Continued positive reporting from Iraq and progress by the Iraqi government is a negative for them. A Democrat controlled Congress being able to achieve terribly little and polls consistently showing it with lower numbers than the President would be a concern as to how the public would view both the legislative and the executive in Democrat hands.
What if it turns out the earth is flat, boy won't a lot of people be embarassed about making fun of the Flat Earth Society. It would be great if things turned around in Iraq but there is no evidence that has happened or is about to happen. The only people pushing the idea that maybe things are better or about to be better are the same people who have been telling us for five years that things have turned around; that previously things were going to hell, but now we have got it figured out.
"Progessives who do not wish us to succeed in Iraq"
Complete and total Bullsh*t.
Thanks, Annoying Mike for sucessfully crowding together enough Conservative Stereotypes into one message to create a Webster's Dictionary example of "Bush Rebublican". Instead of discussing the issue at hand, you wave your hand at me, in pure Internet fashion, and tell me 'I know more about this that you do, so pipe down"
Some of the commenters, like Cheap Engineer, bemoan
so if we're losing the war, it's because our national will is at the shopping mall
defeatists ulterior agenda
Cheap Engineer thinks I "had a stiff drink of the Kool-Aid" because I'm not in lock step with the glitterati who, with the benefit of no experience and no expertise, nonetheless know-it -all about the situation in Iraq
being a mindless cog in the neocon conspiracy
I'm not really interested in your resume', or how many GD degrees you have in Bringing Eden To Iraq. Such an Educated man could manage to present his evidence without being insulting to his audience.
How can anyone read your comments, and be educated, or convinced, if you're an ass?
CheapEngineer
(Finished with this pointless "conversation")
"Should we begin seeing positives from Iraq..."
Too many years have passed on this promise.
"Dems that are continually threatened by the progressives will still lament the loss of life..."
Having gone through Vietnam, I can tell you it is not just the Dems that lament the loss of life.
"...stand back like cowards and throw barbs at the administration feeding falsehoods and exaggerations to the American people..."
There are no "cowards" only Americans who have been feed "falsehoods" by the administration about Iraq.
Nadin, "win", or "going well", in this context, means the voters perception. Was this worth the effort? Does the US have a chance of accomplishing anything other than kicking out Saddam and then leaving the country to civil war? If the voters think "yes", I think it is bad for Dems. "No" is good for them.
A fair perspective, but what if the voters have no perspective of what is going on in Iraq because we have a crappy media? If the Civil War is suppress and Iraq becomes a paradise on Earth, but the voters think that it was too much trouble, does that make it so? If it breaks out in Civil War and ten million people die, but the media convinces us it's not our fault, does that mean the war "went well"?
Also, you set the bar incredibly low in the last sentence and it makes you look foolish. "Was this worth the effort?" is a good standard. "Do we have a chance of accomplishing anything other than kicking out Saddam and then leaving the country to civil war" is not. We always have some tiny chance, but it has to be weigh against the billions of dollars and thousands of lives expended to produce that chance.
NEWSFLASH gents-Iraq was in ruins under Saddam and it's going to take years and years to repair and invest in infrastructure. ... At the same time, 28 million people aren't eating sand, aren't sitting naked in the heat without shelter and water, nor are they being slaughtered like sheep by U.S. and coalition forces.
Sorry, but there is no way anyone with any experience in the region before the war would ever make this remark. Iraq was a lot of things before the invasion, but "in ruins" is hardly one of them. Zero credibility, sorry.
A fair perspective, but what if the voters have no perspective of what is going on in Iraq because we have a crappy media?
In this context, it doesn't matter. The voters are the judge of "going well".
***A fair perspective, but what if the voters have no perspective of what is going on in Iraq because we have a crappy media?***
***In this context, it doesn't matter. The voters are the judge of "going well".***
RSW--How would the American people know if it's "going well" if they are being constantly lied to by the media? Every soldier I have ever talked to says the same thing, the media isn't telling us how much they are accomplishing over there and what good their doing.
Anon, CE, just stick to the message you don't have any creditability anyway. Who remembers Saddams mass graves anyway; Iraq was just a resort area?
No one said it was a resort area, but it was hardly in ruins. If you know anyone who lived there before the invasion and after ask them which the would prefer, simply from an infrastructure point-of-view. There is no question that Iraq's infrastructure is in much worse shape today than it was in January, 2003. Also, to believe that people were being randomly "slaughtered like sheep" or were "naked, eating sand" is to demonstrate such ignorance of Saddam's Iraq that yes, credibility goes to nil.
As for your soldiers, you might want to read this.
CE,
It's really quite simple, and I'm sorry if you don't want to believe it. Progressives do not wish us to win in Iraq. They consistently lie about the administrations intentions and reasons, and exaggerate the negatives when they happen intentionally misleading the public. The Democratic leadership has only been too willing to play that in Congress.
Oil Man,
"Should we begin seeing positives from Iraq..."
Too many years have passed on this promise.
Now finish the sentence so you get the context. The context being the response of the Democrats.
"Dems that are continually threatened by the progressives will still lament the loss of life..."
Having gone through Vietnam, I can tell you it is not just the Dems that lament the loss of life.
Vietnam has nothing to do with it or whether Democrats or Republicans won't lament the loss of life. The context here is what the Democrats will have left to use to be critical of the administration should things continue to turn around allowing us to begin pulling out. Again please finish the sentence so context may be understood.
"...stand back like cowards and throw barbs at the administration feeding falsehoods and exaggerations to the American people..."
There are no "cowards" only Americans who have been feed "falsehoods" by the administration about Iraq.
The Democratic leadership has fought the administration not only on Iraq, but on virtually every other measure the administration has attempted to use to combat terrorism at home and abroad. They have not offered alternatives, but endless tripe. They realize that in providing alternatives they lose their position to discredit the administration and their ability to score political points. Therein lies the cowardice. In addition, your belief that the administration spread falsehoods lets me know precisely where you stand and leads me to then ask - Who do you believe actually brought the WTC towers? Wait, I know. It was a government cover up. The mother of all cover ups.
You will do well in DC, especially as a "Ghost" who writes about Republicans who can do no wrong and Democrates who are always wrong. Your statements reflect a sharp divide between the major political parties gives insight to your beliefs and maturity. I would advise increasing your knowledge and decreasing your information.
What is happening in Iraq----people are being killed, some were my friends, some my friends children, some my relatives-----all of them humans. It needs to stop and soon. If you believe it is a cowardice act to stop killing people, you are part of the problem.
Mike, I find you anything but annoying. Cheap engineer, do you build bridges?
We won the war against Saddam, then another war broke out with the insurgents. Because all the neighboring countries have much vested in their countries, lack of democracy. The last thing any one of them will allow is a stable Iraq with democratic ideals. That might have a domino effect. Given the situation we are doing a great job, except for this propaganda war perpetuated by those who want Bush to fail, even at the expense of our country. Stay the course. Win at all financial cost, as we can get it back in oil over time.
"Win at all financial cost, as we can get it back in oil over time."
Um, it's not our oil. Are you suggesting that they will at some point just start giving it to us for free, or at some ridiculously deep discount? How does that help them to rebuild their infrastructure or economy if they can't get a fair market price?
To those who insist that Iraq is much better now than before--since no one here has said that it was OK under Hussein--how do you explain the mass exodus to surrounding countries?
It's so bad that it is becoming a huge burden on those neighboring countries to the point that they wonder why we aren't footing the bill for these refugees.
It's really quite simple, and I'm sorry if you don't want to believe it. Progressives do not wish us to win in Iraq.
Liar. Every progressive in the thread has stated the opposite. We just want to know what "winning" means so that the goal posts don't get moved. Again.
Things are much better now especially in the north were the Kurds now have opened shopping malls and don't have to worry about being attacked by WMD's by Saddam.
Gee would it be hard for that left wing rag the New York Times to find someone to write Op Ed they wanted to hear?
n/m
"What happens if Iraq goes well?" What the hell does that mean? That the insurgents and religious fanatics are going to stop killing each other and our troops and the Iraqis are just going to hand over their oil to the US? Good luck with that.
The one idea that unites Iraqis of all religions and affiliations is that the US must leave. I say we should respect their wishes.
"They're lying and lying furiously to push an agenda. It's so obvious that when one hears it one can only acknowledge that their devotion to the facts is completely overwhelmed by their devotion to their agenda. Sorry. But that's just how it is. "
Gee, now I'm really confused. Which side are you talking about here?
We've been in conflict with Iraq since 1991. The conflict never ended. Period.
Boy, we've been over this ground before and you STILL don't get it. Your attempts to link the invasion of 2003 with the cease fire are so tired. Remember, the invasion was not supported by the UN. Repeat, IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE UN! Lord Almighty, change the tune bartender.
We're there now and the job needs to be done in order to protect the Iraqis, regional intersts, American interests in the region, and economic interests that effect both us and our allies directly. Abandoning this will be at our own peril.
Just 'cause you say it, that don't make it true. We could leave by Christmas and the international security situation would be about the same. Anyone who wants to attack America in America can do it today just as easily as they could if we weren't there (and guess what? a lot of these folks might be from Wyoming, or Ireland, or Indonesia, or China!). Protecting Israel shouldn't be a goal, after all aren't we giving them billions of dollars in weapons to protect themselves? What are the weapons for? To be polished and oiled while our soldiers die in the desert? So what's left? OIL? Are you seriously claiming we need to spend $500 million a day on a military adventure to protect a small percentage of the world's oil? Have you come so far from early 2003 that now you are willing to admit it is all about oil? (note: that is a QUESTION, no one is putting words into your mouth).
Glock, there was a day when you at least pretended to be bi-partisan. I miss those days. Could we go back to pretending?
Oil man,
Thanks for the condescending criticism of my post and the lesson in spin, but my point, and the point of the thread, is essentially what the domestic political situation will look like regarding Iraq as things keep improving. You might want to reread that so you remain focused.
Progressives and their lackeys in Congress have become the problem with their conspiracy theories and lies regarding the administration, trying to instill fear in the public with their hysterical over the top exaggerations of Bush shredding the Consitution and Bill of Rights, spying on Americans, hindering progress in preventing terrorists from establishing operations in the US by blocking or watering down the Patriot Act and other porgrmas. Or how about the announcements the war is lost by senoir Democrats. What more could the enemy hope to hear from the political party in charge? Simply shameless. The fearmongering of progressives has done nothing but create divisions among the citizenry with the intention of scoring political points, and providing hope to our enemy. Disgusting. Again, the real cowardice is not wanting to kill those who want to kill you, but if you find that objectionable then it is you who are part of the problem. If progressives would have offered reasonable alternatives or worked to get logical revisions, and not get into hysterics making baseless accusations or feed conspiracy theories then a lot of this acrimony would not exist.
"Liar. Every progressive in the thread has stated the opposite."
Are you sure you're reading the same thread, because I hadn't mentioned any poster. Let me check. Nope. I have indicated the very way that progressives and their lackeys in Congress have become part of the problem. You may return to your regularly scheduled spin.
Glock,
Very well said as usual.
Glock: I agree entirely, which is why I have been emphaticaly against withdrawal in principle.
But please answer me one question:
How is the deception in terms of "Why we invaded" irrelevant?
It is irrelevant to our current decisions insofar as what to do in/with Iraq. But it is horribly relevant in terms of evaluating our national leadership. If your head chef pisses in your daily special and then lies about it, it's true that you should move on to damage control, but you should definitely remember that in terms of job evaluation. While the simple binary decision "Should we stay or should we go" is the same regardless of whether you are a good progressive, good conservative, or crazy, evl neo-con ;P, the actual execution would be entirely different under an actual conservative administration.
As for the clarity on what constitutes a win, that's completely unfair. Just look above in the thread--some folks think that a win is appropriating Iraqi oil to pay for the war, others think that by getting Saddam out we have already won, Gordy himself thinks that as long as we can concoct some long-term plan and claim that it's remotely possible that things won't be as bad as it was under Hussein that it's all good. And it would be nice to get something concrete, honest and consistent from the administration. I believe that YOU have been consistent in your definitions. But that's why I'd be happy if YOU we running the continuing war effort, but not the folks in charge now.
Ghost: You made a labelling which you poorly defined and made an absolute generalization that doesn't apply to many who would identify themselves in that group. It was deceitful and irresponsible at the least. And good luck finding "progressive" lackeys in Congress. Can you McCarthy up a list for me--it should be good to know which moderate conservative Democrats others think are progressive.
"You made a labelling which you poorly defined and made an absolute generalization that doesn't apply to many who would identify themselves in that group. It was deceitful and irresponsible at the least."
Not in the least. You're arguing semantics. I defined who they were by their actions, and I did not say all. If I said all progressives then you would have a leg to stand on but you don't. What is actually deceitful and irresponsible is their behavior in undermining national security to score political points and indirectly helping the enemy. It's also very telling that you don't deny their behavior.
"And good luck finding "progressive" lackeys in Congress. Can you McCarthy up a list for me--it should be good to know which moderate conservative Democrats others think are progressive."
Heh. Easy. KOS and MoveOn have already done so by threatening Democrats they feel aren't progressive enough and will support other candidates that will march in lockstep with them. It is those that feel threatened by this fringe feel it is a cause for concern. You may return to your spin.
You are welcome for my pointing out your "GOP can do no wrong" spin, Ghost. Your comment about things improving in Iraq has no basis in fact nor does your comment of my focus, so two wrongs do not make you right unless Joe McCarthy, a never wrong Republican, is in your family tree. Want to try again?
"Again, the real cowardice is not wanting to kill those who want to kill you, but if you find that objectionable then it is you who are part of the problem."
On the basis of this statement alone, I think any attempt at a reasoned discussion of this topic with Ghost 4-6 is an exercise in frustration.
Ok, now time for IP Impressions (TM)
AND IT IS TEH PROGRESSIVES I DIDN:T SAY ALL PROGRESSIVES SO IT"S FINE FOR ME TO MAKE GRAOSS GENERALIZAITON WHO ARE TRAITORs!
GO BACK TO YOUR SPIN!
Go SPIN MORE! SPINT SPIN SPIN!
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA! SPIN!
"But I don't hate America!"
STOP SPINING YOU SPINNER SPINERRNER SPINNER!
"Your comment about things improving in Iraq has no basis in fact....."
Uh, Oil Man, apparently you haven't been watching the news lately since Hillary, Obama, and Edwards have begrudgingly admitted things are improving only this week. It is also the point of speculation should it continue how does it change the political landscape hence the basis for this thread. With apologies to John Badham, "Want to try again?"
xian, calm yourself.
n/m... sorry about the double post
Not much fact as usual in your post Ghost 4-6
Anonymous, you can read this:
http://www.timesleader.com/news/ap?articleID=35751
Or this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070820/ap_po/candidates_iraq;_ylt=AgO2Lvr5Cxfg.0qqK59fg32yFz4D
Or this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293815,00.html
And, again, the reason for the thread:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070820/ap_on_go_pr_wh/democrats_iraq_1;_ylt=ArnrQMhYiSxIeDMO03OfsWtX6GMA
Or you can keep saying that everyone is simply lying.
Everyone is not lying just those saying things are improving in Iraq. I have been there several times. I saw first hand how bad all the reconstruction contracts are going. In three years security has done nothing but go down. I have seen almost all of the Iraq people who could-leave. I have seen our US contractors doing little or nothing for the millions they are receiving. I have seen most of the school, water, wastewater, power construction projects either never started or never finished. Of the hundreds of soldiers I have talked to over the last four years, most feel this 'Bush' war was ill conceived, ill managed without proper planning. The rest just want it to end. The only lying here is being done by the politicians, like the ones you quoted in a earlier post and the Bush administration. You are being politically 'sucker punched' along with a lot of the American public.
To bad you’re an anonymous poster so you have zero creditability because I have no way to check out your story. None of it makes any sense anyway unless you have been all over the countryyou could not have seen or heard about the whole country.
Heh.
Everyone is not lying just those saying things are improving in Iraq. I have been there several times. I saw first hand how bad all the reconstruction contracts are going.
Uh, yeah. Um, did you also happen to talk with Bigfoot and The Loch Ness Monster during your travels? You seem to have filled your head with so much anti-war drivel that you have finally parted ways with reality.
I work for DoD. I have only been to sites in Iraq where re-construction was scheduled. I have not been "all over the country" nor did I claim such. I have only talked to several hundreds of soldiers and about the same non-soldiers DoD and civilian contractors, havoing been in country a total of 84 days in the past four years. I have not seen or heard about the whole country only the 41 sites in 9 regions I have been to. From what I have seen and heard Americans are being politically 'sucker punched' about the conditions in Iraq. The 'only anti-war drivel' (as Nemo calls it) I have seen is dead bodies or body parts in Iraq. I am not looking to gain any creditability with you as I am just in town to say goodbye to a friend. I posted my opinion based upon my experiences, which appears to be what some of you do.
Yeah, except for the "experiences" part.
I still don't understand how people can believe that things are no worse in Iraq now than before the war, when Syria--of all places--has had to pick up the slack for us with the massive refugee exodus.
Is that what "America" means to us these days--create massive problems, refuse to take responsibility for them, and make our enemies pick up the burden of the people running from our flaming trainwreck of a policy?
I'm not saying that it wasn't necessary. But at the very least couldn't we grant refugee status to the, uh, refugees whom we've created?
So Anonymous, you've been to 41 reconstruction sites? Which part of "DoD" do you work for? I may be ignorant, but I'm only aware of the Army Corps of Engineers as the only DoD organization with reconstruction responsibilities. So with which division of COE do you work? What about the AID effort, what can you tell us about that?
What refugees are in Syria, Xian? Do you think they'are Shia? Kurd? A number of them are al-Tikriti with lots of loot from their glory days in the Saddam era. Another chunk of them are Iraqi Christians. Didn't know the U.S. was forcing Chaldeans to leave the country.
Poor, poor Syria. Saddam and his family and their ilk moved to Syria with their ill-gotten wealth. In my book, that doesn't make them refugees.
"Another chunk of them are Iraqi Christians. Didn't know the U.S. was forcing Chaldeans to leave the country."
xian never said the U.S. was forcing anyone to leave the country. Your sarcasm completely mistates the argument. Millions of Iraqis have left because they simply don't want to starve or get blown up or shot. They are those who can leave, and they include people from all walks of life, poor and middle class and wealthy, but there has been a particularly noticeable departure of merchants, businessmen, and professionals. In other words, exactly the reasonably well educated folks who would have been essential for rebuilding.
"Saddam and his family and their ilk moved to Syria with their ill-gotten wealth. In my book, that doesn't make them refugees."
First of all, Saddam's family members would be a relatively small percentage of the total number of refugees. Second, from what I saw in the media, the ones who weren't killed or captured seem to have ended up in Jordan, not Syria, and didn't get to take much of anything with them. Do you have any reputable sources for such an inflammatory broad brush of a claim?
In your first post you said--" I saw first hand how bad all the reconstruction contracts are going". then you posted in your second "I have not been "all over the country" nor did I claim such”. Which is it then? Good luck on your trip. Here is just some of the listed improvements from USAID.
Restored or provided new water treatment to over 2.3 million Iraqis and sewage treatment to over 5.1 million.
Expanded Sharq Dijlah water plant by 50 MGD and rehabilitated three sewage plants, which serve 80 percent of Baghdad's population, thus eliminating dumping raw sewage into the Tigris.
Kerkh wastewater treatment plant (WTP) began operating on May 19, 2004, the first major Iraqi plant to operate at full capacity in more than 12 years.
Standby generators have been procured and installed at 27 Baghdad water facilities, ensuring continued supply of treated water in the event of power outages.
Refurbished existing sewage lines and pump stations serving the Kadhamiya area of western Baghdad.
Rehabilitated the Sweet Water Canal system: repairing breaches, cleaning and repairing the main water storage and settling reservoir and refurbishing 14 water treatment plants around Basrah city.
Treated water production increased by over 100 percent, serving over 1.1 million additional people.
Rehabilitated two water plants and four sewage plants.
Najaf, Diwaniyah, Hillah, and Karbala sewage plants serve nearly 1 million people.
Water treatment plants in Najaf and Karbala serve more than 375,000residents and pilgrims near one of Iraq's holiest shrines.
Provided major equipment for Mosul Water and Sewer Directorates. Refurbished the Kirkuk WTP.
The refugees in Syria are Saddams Family and WMD's.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Nationwide:
Baghdad:
South:
South Central:
North:
the media are all crappy and anti-war! ....
but wait! here's some democrat's saying the war is gonig better! .... i have media articles to prove it!!!
I have no idea if he is who he says he is, but it's not like anyone else on here is non-anonymous and a firsthand observer of these things. I guess I'm curious why anonymous, who disagrees with you, is assumed to be lying about having firsthand experience, but we don't care about firsthand experience when it comes to Goldberg, Stossel, Hanson or the rest of these folks talking out of their behinds.
So Anonymous, you've been to 41 reconstruction sites? Which part of "DoD" do you work for?
He works for the part in charge of the aliens at Area 51. You know the part where they make up all kinds of fantastic stories and try to convince us they know the "secret" truth that the evil government is hiding from us. What a crank.
Reputable Sources KS? Do I have to provide a bibliography too? LOL.
Accurate figures for displaced persons, internal and external to Iraq, are all over the map. What would you consider reputable? Estimates of refugees in Syria include 1 million "believed" by UNHCR, 1.4 million "estimated" by DemocracyNow, etc. An "All Things Considered" report on Iraqi refugees in Syria says: "All Things Considered, June 22, 2007 · Human rights organizations say the flow of Iraqi refugees forced out of the country by violence is a silent crisis. There are no posters of starving Iraqi children to spur awareness and fundraising campaigns. Iraqi exiles don't live in refugee camps and most aren't starving — not yet, anyway."
Nobody's done a census of refugees and the mobility of Iraqis makes it problematic as well. Included in all of these figures are people who were displaced before the war. People are displaced for a variety of reasons, starting with Saddam's forced relocation programs to weaken the power of the Shia and Kurds.
As for my statement, the "and their ilk" reference was to all of the loyal Ba'ath party members who left with their assets. It was perhaps too subtle a reference. But my point was calling them refugees without further clarification puts a perception in people's minds of Darfur or Palestinian refugee camps. That's not the reality.
What I also fail to see reference to are the numbers of people who move back to Iraq and those that move in and out of Iraq.
Xian's comments were sadly lacking context and thus open to a wide variety of perceptions-many of them without factual foundation, but with plenty of political vitriol.........
Mike: Thank you for your very thoughfful and most informative response. You raise several valid points regarding those who have left Iraq. As I mentioned myself, those who have been displaced run the full spectrum of circumstances and relative well-being.
Unfortunately, you missed the main point of my question entirely. I wasn't asking about any of that. You specifically mentioned Sadam and his family. Sadam, of course, is dead, so that part of your allegation was obviously inaccurate, and I think it is probably very unlikely that there could be a reputable source claiming otherwise.
My question about reputable sources was intended solely in regards to Sadam's family and your claim that they in particular had spirited vast chunks of looted wealth to Syria. What is the basis for that claim?
I have no doubt that lots of Bathists got the hell out of Dodge when the sky fell in. I can't say as I blame them, but I'm not asking about them. I'm asking about your specific reference to Sadam's family, many of whom were either arrested or killed, and some of whom (most notably the closest female members) ended up in Jordan without much more than a suitcase full of personal items and clothes, as far as I know. What do you know that has not been reported in the media, or did I just miss the news that day?
How was this post unclear:
I still don't understand how people can believe that things are no worse in Iraq now than before the war, when Syria--of all places--has had to pick up the slack for us with the massive refugee exodus.
Is that what "America" means to us these days--create massive problems, refuse to take responsibility for them, and make our enemies pick up the burden of the people running from our flaming trainwreck of a policy?
I'm not saying that it wasn't necessary. But at the very least couldn't we grant refugee status to the, uh, refugees whom we've created?
I'm saying that there has been a massive refugee exodus. Washington Post says 700,000 since the start of the war:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58648-2005Feb2.html
It mentions that they are from "various ethnic, religious, and economic background" and describes the burden they are placing on Syria.
It says this:
The first trickle of wealthy Iraqis, who U.S. officials say may now be helping finance the insurgency, has been followed by a larger wave of mostly Shiite Muslims and Christians -- groups targeted by the daily violence. U.N. officials say many are doctors, professors, business owners and recent college graduates, the intellectual core that officials in Washington hoped would rebuild Iraq.
So I guess you are right that actually it's not a big deal because it is a bunch of Saddam's best buddies who dragged up his corpse and are refilming "Weekend at Bernie's" in Syria.
This article says 100,000 per month are fleeing the country.
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html
I can't remember what the link limit is, so I'll post the next one separate.
Ok last article, but probably the most important:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18944557/
So according to the article, of the 2 million refugees, up until this year, we'd allowed 800 in. That's .04%.
Now we are finally allowing 7,000 in.
That's good, but late and not nearly enough. This should have been a no-brainer--it was our duty to protect innocent Iraqis, especially those who came under suspicion for helping our projects and troops.
Why did Sweden figure this out better than we did?
Nidan,
<<Define what win means, or else this whole discussion is rather meaningless.>>
Just wanted to say thank you for the excellent post. I particularly enjoyed the link to the Harper's article, which sums up in sweeping detail everything that I fear about the nature of politics in this country. Milgram's obedience experiments and the Stanford Prisoners have been on my mind a lot these past few months. I'm worried about the rhetoric... "us" vs. "them" has always been a part of our national dialogue, but without clearly defined enemies who are easy to spot and relatively easy to understand, I am genuinely concerned that we're looking into a new kind of Crusade in the twenty-first century. If you're not pro-America (America being defined under very certain terms, and incompatible with anything that does not conform to that description), you're anti-America, and less than human as a result.
Yeah, that frightens me. I love my country, but that doesn't mean that I'm blind to the power of sociological cancers that feed on our fear of "the other".
__
Kem