How do you feel about Iraq?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

So what are the soldiers supposed to do? Shoot first with no provocation?

The simple answer is: Yes. The reason is that that is what war is. That is why you declare war, and that is why a declaration of war must be made solemnly and carefully. I believe you're a Battlestar Galactica fan, are you not? They cover this idea, I think in episode three of the first season where Adama talks about why you separate the military from the police. This is the exact reason. Our current rules of engagement are really for a police force and not for soldiers. The biggest problem is that our soldiers are forced to act on the level of cops and robbers, while the guys they're fighting are acting on the level of a battlefield in war.

 

That sounds like a recipe for a political disaster since NO ONE will understand when troops make the mistake of shooting someone who doesn't deserve it.

And yet they do understand when insurgents kill/blow up/behead people who don't deserve it.

 

So how do you adapt with the enemy is in the mists [sic] of people who look just like them?

You get the people who look just like the terrorists to be the ones policing/destroying them.

 

Sounds like a job for police to work out to me.

Couldn't agree more.

 

Then we can put troops back in Afghanistan and get the Job done that we WANTED done. If that isn't too late.

I don't follow.

 

Eric, I agree with you as well except for the point that you think terrorists are criminals. I think calling them criminals is being nice... in fact, treating terrorism as a criminal issue was historically a big mistake on our country's part.

[Art Sandusky 0]

You can't follow that Afghanistan was the justified war and directly related to what started this "War on Terror" garbage in the first place?

[EricMM 0]

I don't follow you Spicy.

 

You admit that it's a matter for the police not the army, yet you won't accept that the terrorists are being criminals not soldiers?

 

The Army is for fighting an opposing army. Tanks fight infantry and other tanks. Planes bomb ships or other planes. Howitzers level cities. None of these things are any good at rooting out terrorists. Israel tries the fucking bulldozer method themselves, it does not work.

 

The soldiers are not equipped to police them. They just aren't. And even if we had a million cops to spring on that country, I do not know if it would work. At this point, it may be a wash.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

I don't follow as to why it's too late to do something in Afghanistan. And also your implicit idea that all we needed to do was respond to the Taliban. You seem to forget that being reactive has allowed terrorism to become as bad as it is... the further actions after Afghanistan were an effort to start becoming proactive.

 

Terrorists are far worse than criminals. The issue was how to get Iraqis to stop blowing up Iraqis. The answer is with an Iraqi military and an Iraqi police force. Soldiers are not equipped to police terrorists, but they are equipped to destroy them. The problem is that they're being asked to do the former. My first use of police was as in, to control, not literally to use a police force.

 

Israel's methods do work. They only stopped because they mistakenly bowed to the pressure of the anti-Semitic UN and EU.

[Art Sandusky 0]

The Taliban was not who attacked us. It was the group they were supporting. We're still fighting both, so where was the need to go off and fight somewhere else? It sounds good and all to use such point A-point B logic like "let's be proactive and root these guys out before they come to our shores," but the realities of how geopolitics work disallows this kind of maverick philosophy. If you believe being proactive is the solution to terrorism, why haven't we invaded Northern Ireland too? More realistically, why was terrorism not as widespread before this? Continuing this path only pisses off more people and creates more enemies.

[SuperJerk 0]

Has anyone proposed the idea to divide Iraq up into separate countries according to ethnic group?

 

It would probably involve more of an investment there than we're already making, but it'd be better than the current model of trying to unite them just so they can have a full-blown Civil War the second we leave.

 

I still think leaving Iraq's a bad idea, but what we're doing now has no chance of working. These people have no desire to get along with each other. Why continue to force them into being a united democracy?

 

To answer my own question...

 

Joe Biden's Iraq Plan

[SuperJerk 0]

Army Times: 'Time for Rumsfeld to go'

 

(CNN) -- An editorial to be published in an independent military publication Monday calls for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to be replaced.

 

And the Pentagon is countering by saying the new "chorus of criticism" is "old news."

 

The editorial will appear Monday in the four weekly publications that serve the four main branches of the U.S. military, according to the senior managing editor for Army Times Publications, the papers' parent company.

 

It is owned by the Gannett Company, publisher of USA Today and many local U.S. newspapers.

 

The editorial was posted Saturday on the Web sites of the four publications: Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and the Marine Corps Times. (Read the editorial)

 

It reads: "It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads."

 

The timing of the editorial's publishing was not prompted by Tuesday's midterm elections, said Army Times' editor Robert Hodierne.

 

It was inspired by Bush statement this week that he wants Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney in their posts through the end of his term, the editor said. (Watch Bush say Rumsfeld is staying on the job -- 1:20)

 

Swaying conservative voters "is not our aim," Hodierne told CNN on Friday.

 

"Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large," the editorial states. "His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt."

 

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the president was told about the editorial, and his reaction was to "shrug it off."

 

Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman downplayed the "new chorus of criticism."

 

[it] is actually old news and does not include commanders in the field, who remain committed to the mission," Whitman said.

 

"The assertion, without evidence, that senior military officers are 'toeing the line' is an insult to their judgment and integrity," he added.

 

Hodierne countered by saying that Rumsfeld has "lost the support and respect of the military leadership" considering "some of the public statements that military leaders are making."

 

"... With their [other military leaders'] disagreements, added up with all of the other missteps we believe he's made, it's time for him to be replaced," Hodierne said.

 

Whitman said Rumsfeld has always "clearly and accurately" described the challenges facing U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the "war on terror" will be a long struggle.

 

"This country and the leadership of the Defense Department are going to ensure that our military forces have the resources to successfully carry out their mission, and to suggest otherwise is simply wrong," he said.

 

This is the second time the military publications have urged Rumsfeld to vacate his post.

 

In May 2004, when the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke, an Army Times editorial said: "This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top."

 

Army Times Publishing is the world's largest publisher of defense and military-related periodicals, Hodierne said.

 

The four weekly newspapers, distributed in base convenience stores and commissaries around the world as well as delivered to subscribers, have a combined circulation of about 250,000.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/04/rum...ture/index.html

[Dobbs 3K 0]

That's funny. It's like "Yeah, we know people are criticizing him. It's been going on forever. Who cares?"

 

The Republican strategy really does seem to be "Lie and die, stay with the status quo", etc.

[Hasbeen1 0]

Those are published by the same people that put out USA Today. Are you surprised, and by the timing? Here's a better article, from April but still worthy of reading:

 

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson041206.html

[Art Sandusky 0]

Soooo... invade California and make it safe for democracy?

 

Nice try. I think I've seen that article cited more than once when arguing that things in Iraq aren't going that badly.

 

Question: Are bombings a very real threat each and every day in California?

[Hasbeen1 0]

No. Are murders and rapes? The point was what's being reported, and how. How many major stories do you see on the economy improving in Iraq, schools being built, and most of all, courageous soldiers doing extraordinary things?

[Art Sandusky 0]

The last happens every day, but there isn't a lot of economic improvement or infrastructure development. In fact, whatever Iraqi academics couldn't afford to leave the country are being regularly kidnapped and executed by various groups around the country. Is it that fucking difficult to admit that things aren't going well at all over there? Do you have a big "Mission Accomplished" banner on your house?

[NoCalMike 0]

No. Are murders and rapes? The point was what's being reported, and how. How many major stories do you see on the economy improving in Iraq, schools being built, and most of all, courageous soldiers doing extraordinary things?

 

 

I'm sorry, but in the middle of a war-zone, a country in shambles, and in civil war, a random school being built somewhere should NOT be the priority in the news what-so-ever.

 

It's is like Bush, how he keeps going back to "The Iraqi people voted" yet doesn't discuss what exactly they voted for, the conditions for how the new government will run, and exactly what this means for the long run.

[Hasbeen1 0]

The last happens every day, but there isn't a lot of economic improvement or infrastructure development. In fact, whatever Iraqi academics couldn't afford to leave the country are being regularly kidnapped and executed by various groups around the country. Is it that fucking difficult to admit that things aren't going well at all over there? Do you have a big "Mission Accomplished" banner on your house?

 

 

It's a war. There are losses. Yes, there are lots of good things happening but you have to look for them. The Mission Accomplished was for toppling the Iraqi government. That was done, and done quickly. The terrorists know their acts will be publicized around the world, especially by the likes of CNN so they keep doing them. They're blowing up their own people, just to get negative attention on the U.S. They're not stupid. Why do you have to discuss this like you're cutting a wrestling promo? (So fucking difficult?)

[Art Sandusky 0]

I think I have to discuss this "like a wrestling promo" because it apparently IS fucking difficult for you to understand this. "It's a war?" "There are losses?" I'm not even complaining about the losses of our own army. The entire country is a mess and the people are fighting each other now. Why is this is acceptable? Is it because it's a war and someone's gotta die?

[Hasbeen1 0]

Did I say it's good? What would you do right now, if you were in charge. November 6, not in a few months.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Pull up roots and withdraw. Seriously. I'd also admit it was a huge mistake, use terminology such as "invasion" and "occupation" during the statement, and wish the Iraqis well. I'd continue to supply the government with monetary aid for security measures and humanitarian ends, but the military presence would vanish. Call it cutting and running all you want, but keep in mind that saying "get out of Iraq" doesn't mean the same as "get out of the Middle East." We've had lots of servicemen in the region for years, so painting a withdrawl from Iraq as a concession to radicals would be flawed. Going back to prewar troop levels in the region would simply be a start though. Keep in mind that al-Queda is pissed that we're in the region in the first place, but it's difficult to chart a plan beyond leaving Iraq. You'd have to see what would happen in the first 90 days or so after the withdrawl. I'd like to think that the violence would dissipate, the Iraqis would get ahold of themselves, and they'd come together in the way that we originally intended when this mess started. All we're doing right now is spraying more lighter fluid on an already out-of-control barbeque.

[NoCalMike 0]

The last happens every day, but there isn't a lot of economic improvement or infrastructure development. In fact, whatever Iraqi academics couldn't afford to leave the country are being regularly kidnapped and executed by various groups around the country. Is it that fucking difficult to admit that things aren't going well at all over there? Do you have a big "Mission Accomplished" banner on your house?

 

 

It's a war. There are losses. Yes, there are lots of good things happening but you have to look for them. The Mission Accomplished was for toppling the Iraqi government. That was done, and done quickly. The terrorists know their acts will be publicized around the world, especially by the likes of CNN so they keep doing them. They're blowing up their own people, just to get negative attention on the U.S. They're not stupid. Why do you have to discuss this like you're cutting a wrestling promo? (So fucking difficult?)

 

 

Riiiight, this is one of my "favorite" talking points...."it's the media's fault" If Savage or Drudge puts up video of a beheading on their website it is something "Americans need to see to witness the brutality of these people" but if CNN REPORTS THE FUCKING NEWS, they are "liberal commie bastards that want America to lose" I don't know where you get your news from, but the major problem in Iraq right now is not even foreign fighters, it is Iraqis themselves that are in civil war, while each side at the same time wants us the hell out of there. It is so keen to blame the media, but a reality check might be in order to maybe realize that the Insurgency might exist because Iraqis don't want to be occupied.

[NoCalMike 0]

Pull up roots and withdraw. Seriously. I'd also admit it was a huge mistake, use terminology such as "invasion" and "occupation" during the statement, and wish the Iraqis well. I'd continue to supply the government with monetary aid for security measures and humanitarian ends, but the military presence would vanish. Call it cutting and running all you want, but keep in mind that saying "get out of Iraq" doesn't mean the same as "get out of the Middle East." We've had lots of servicemen in the region for years, so painting a withdrawl from Iraq as a concession to radicals would be flawed. Going back to prewar troop levels in the region would simply be a start though. Keep in mind that al-Queda is pissed that we're in the region in the first place, but it's difficult to chart a plan beyond leaving Iraq. You'd have to see what would happen in the first 90 days or so after the withdrawl. I'd like to think that the violence would dissipate, the Iraqis would get ahold of themselves, and they'd come together in the way that we originally intended when this mess started. All we're doing right now is spraying more lighter fluid on an already out-of-control barbeque.

 

 

The thing is, the Iraqi Insurgency is not on the same side as the foreign fighters, they just had a common goal because Iraq was being occupied by our military. Iraqis JUST WANT US OUT, and Al Qaeda(among other barbarians) just find it convenient to cross over into Iraq and try to kill our soldiers because it is a chaotic civil war-zone with no border control. If America's forces left, I am willing to bet that the Iraqis who don't seem to have any trouble getting weapons, will turn on the foreign fighters and drive them out, because hell, if I am an Iraqi, I don't want Al Qaeda in my country anymore then I want America, probably even less so, and my gun will be pointed at the next terrorist who thinks he/she is getting their hands on Iraqi oil. I mean, it's not like the IRAQI's ASKED for Al Qaeda to come in, or to have their country as the fictional "central front of the war on terrorism" Our President kind of just decided and planned/unplanned for that to happen...

[Art Sandusky 0]

That would be included in the "Iraqis coming together" part. Freedom's a hell of a drug, and the Iraqis know that all these assholes coming in from Syria and Iran are trying to cop their fix.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Those are published by the same people that put out USA Today. Are you surprised, and by the timing? Here's a better article, from April but still worthy of reading:

 

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson041206.html

 

Wow this is real bullshit.

 

In 1982, California had a population of 25 million, the same as Iraq now. They had 2,770 murders.

 

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm

 

Note that they had higher per capita a few years before and after.

 

If Iraq continues with a number like 50 a day dead (low estimate), that's the equivalent of 18,250 a year. If California had myriad gang wars causing that kind of death, I would imagine there would be about the same level of frustration & anger as there is now in Iraq & constant cries for the government to do something dramatic to solve the problem.

 

Another significant difference in that the Iraqi people are also having to deal everyday with the lack of essential services like electricity.

 

Oh, and is California putting out calls for volunteers to fish bodies out of rivers?

 

http://www.worldvolunteerweb.org/news-view...eve-bodies.html

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Yes, there are lots of good things happening but you have to look for them.

 

Some Iraqi named Darryl just installed a low flow toilet! Stop the presses!

 

Obligatory: "You never hear about the cars that DON'T blow up."

 

The Mission Accomplished was for toppling the Iraqi government. That was done, and done quickly.

 

And Don Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone who planned for anything thereafter.

 

Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid

The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave

 

I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6skfbT42lU

[snuffbox 0]

Not having electricity is extraordinary.

[SuperJerk 0]

Chris Matthews was trying to get Howard Dean to say the US needed an immediate withdrawal, and that by not doing so he was kind of betraying his position that the war was a mistake. Matthews really needs to read the first post of this thread.

[SuperJerk 0]

How does Tony Blair feel about Iraq?

 

 

Blair's 'Iraq disaster' interview provokes storm

 

 

LONDON, England (CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair provoked a storm Saturday after apparently admitting that the invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain was "a disaster."

 

Blair did not use the words himself, but appeared to agree with the assessment of the interviewer Sir David Frost on Al-Jazeera's new English-language channel.

 

Blair's Downing Street office insisted that the British leader's views had been misrepresented and that it was "disingenuous" to portray it as an admission, the UK's Press Association said.

 

During the interview, Frost suggested that the West's intervention in Iraq had "so far been pretty much of a disaster."

 

Blair replied: "It has, but you see what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq? It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy -- al Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other -- to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."

 

Opposition MPs seized on the comment as evidence that Blair has finally accepted that his strategy in the Middle Eastern state had failed.

 

British newspapers carried the story on their front pages Saturday

 

"Iraq invasion a disaster, Blair admits on Arab TV," was the headline in the Daily Telegraph.

 

"PM Tony Blair last night sensationally admitted the Iraq War fallout has become 'disastrous,' reported Britain's biggest selling daily, The Sun.

 

Blair's remarks came after former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said he feared his country was on the verge of disintegration -- a situation he said he never anticipated. (Watch Allawi reveal the 'frightening' nature of the situation in Iraq -- 2:14)

 

"It's really quite alarming and dangerous, where Iraq is now. It's quite frightening," he told CNN.

 

"Iraq is slipping continuously into a chaotic level of violence. "To be honest, this is not something that I could have imagined when we fought Saddam's regime."

 

Meanwhile in Iraq coalition and Iraqi troops in southeastern Iraq continued their hunt for five Western security contractors abducted the day before. (Full story)

 

Reacting to his comments, Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell said the prime minister should now apologize for his actions.

 

He told PA: "At long last the enormity of the decision to take military action against Iraq is being accepted by the prime minister.

 

"It could hardly be otherwise as the failure of strategy becomes so clear. "If the prime minister accepts that it is a 'disaster' then surely parliament and the British people who were given a flawed prospectus are entitled to an apology."

 

A Downing Street spokeswoman said Blair did not believe that the violence in Iraq had been a disaster.

 

"He was simply acknowledging the question in a polite way before going on to explain his view.

 

"To portray it as some kind of admission is completely disingenuous," the spokeswoman told the BBC.

 

Appeasement argument rejected

Blair used the interview to speak at length about British foreign policy in the Middle East and the continuing violence in Iraq. He reiterated his appeal to Iran and Syria to become partners of the West in the search for peace in the troubled region.

 

Blair rejected any suggestion that his readiness to work with the two countries was appeasement.

 

Meanwhile, The Islington Tribune reported that Trade Minister Margaret Hodge told a private meeting of Labour supporters that Blair was guilty of "moral imperialism."

 

Hodge told members of Islington's Fabian Society that the Iraq war was Blair's "big mistake in foreign affairs", the paper reported.

 

After her criticisms of the prime minister, she added: "I hope this isn't going to be reported," the newspaper claimed.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/18/...lair/index.html

[Guest Felonies!]

Yeah, and it Iraqed, IIRC.

[SuperJerk 0]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/11/20/rel29b.pdf

 

Latest CNN poll.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061123/ap_on_...aq_061123155736

 

OK...if that doesn't scream "civil war", I don't know what does.

[snuffbox 0]

Worst day of the war so far. Possible Al-Qaeda ties. Now our President can say, "See America, I told you Iraq attacked us on 9-11, heh heh."