Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

Algol · 2004-09-19 04:40:17

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3668016.stm

Tony Blair was warned by Jack Straw there could be post-war problems in Iraq, according to newspaper reports.

From a year before our invasion

Mr Straw wrote: "No-one has satisfactorily answered how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better. Iraq has no history of democracy so no-one has this habit or experience."

Even a democratic government might develop WMD so long as Israel and Iran guarded their own arsenals and Palestinian grievances remained unsolved, it continued.
According the Telegraph, the documents throw doubt on the UK government's reasons for the war.

Mr Blair was reportedly warned he would have to "wrong foot" Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war,"
And he was told British officials believed President Bush wanted to complete his father's "unfinished business" in a "grudge match" against Saddam", the Telegraph said.

One letter from foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, reportedly warned of a "real risk" that the US administration had underestimated these difficulties.
President Bush still had to answer big questions such as "what happens on the morning after", he reportedly warned.

sigh.

Grypd · 2004-09-19 05:27:40

I think if anyone had really paid attention we should have known that Iraq would implode when occupied. There are too many factions and different races to have expected them to become good little western based democracy driven in a year of occupation.

C M Edwards · 2004-09-19 14:04:21

*shrug* Well, the US and Britain are "in for a penny, in for a pound" now. It is not practical to just withdraw at this point.

We broke it, now we have to buy it.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-19 19:15:29

I don't really want to get involved in arguments over the pros and cons of liberating Iraq because they inevitably degenerate into the usual 'Bush-bashing' routine by American Democrats or 'Yankee-bashing' routine by the International Socialists.
However, there's little doubt in my mind and the minds of many other observers that the great majority of the trouble in Iraq, post liberation, can be directly attributed to just a few thousand Islamic terrorists. Many of them are in the pay of, or are the ideological cannon fodder of, Iran and Syria. The rest are just local religious fanatics agitating for power. The fact that they can wage an effective terrorist campaign against the Iraqi people for such an extended period, despite determined military policing by America, Britain, Australia and the rest of the coalition forces, is strong evidence that they're being backed by the effectively limitless resources of a nation state (read Iran/Syria).

The motive for this disruptive intervention by Iran and Syria is plain to see. The very last thing they want or need is a prosperous democratic Iraq next door to their theocratic dictatorships. The contrast with their benighted feudalistic regimes, where women are chattels and academic publications are vetted by clerics to see that they don't clash with Islamic dogma, would be too embarrassing. And besides, it would be a backward step on the path to an Islamofascist Superfederation, occupying all of the Middle East and liaising with the Islamic Superstate planned by Jemaah Islamiah terrorists here on Australia's doorstep in Indonesia.

But wait, you say! Shouldn't Bush, Blair and Howard have had the foresight to see this coming? How blind they were .. how impulsive and stupid!
But were they?
We sit here at our keyboards, socially-aware, compassionate and wise, gazing out at the world situation and agonising over the crassness of our leadership. But how much do we really know?
There are hundreds of people in the bowels of the Pentagon who spend all their time looking at the world and its political dynamics. They have access to information we don't, from sensitive sources you and I will never hear about, and they make contingency plans which are never published.
Let's just imagine that the West, in conjunction with Israeli intelligence, has seen this Islamic terrorism thing coming for many years. Let's suppose that a plan was hatched, a plan breathtaking in its scope and audacity. What if they were just waiting for an excuse to implement that plan and the excuse arrived in New York on September 11, 2001.
The excuse allowed a coalition invasion of Afghanistan, to hunt down the Al-Q'aida group responsible for 9/11. And, in concert with the strong suspicion that Saddam was developing WMD, it also allowed for the invasion of Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people.
It was probably a given among Western intelligence organisations, already well aware of Iran and Syria's involvement with terrorism for years, that those two states would not, could not, countenance the rise of a free democratic Iraq in their midst. Wave after wave of terrorism, sabotage and violence were anticipated from the beginning but it was all part of the plan.

Now, you have a quarter of a million coalition troops in Iraq, ostensibly policing it as the first free elections approach and the violence escalates. Now, the Iranians are in the news more and more - developing nukes and ballistic missiles and becoming the focus of blame for the atrocities committed against innocent Iraqis every day.
With elections coming up in America, Britain and Australia, the time may be politically right for the next stage of the plan. American troops are being withdrawn from Europe and elsewhere as we speak. Can all of the 200,000+ coalition troops in Iraq be engaged in clearing out insurgents and terrorists? It seems unlikely to me.

Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that the coalition were to launch a sudden surprise invasion of Iran and Syria, annihilating their military forces and establishing temporary martial law. (After Beslan, an unexpected bonus might even be the acquiescence of Russia; perhaps even its military support! )
All of a sudden, Iraq becomes manageable and democracy is successfully implanted. The threat of a theocratic Iran armed with nukes is eliminated. Iran and Syria's support of Palestinian terrorism ceases. Israel's siege mentality is quelled, since she no longer feels as seriously threatened, and negotiations begin with a Palestinian Authority now much more willing to compromise.

No doubt the outcry from the world's media and the usual suspects at the U.N. and in China would be fierce but, staggered by the scope of the action and presented with a 'fait accompli', there is little they can do about it. The Arab world, the despots at the U.N., and the totalitarian regime in China, really only understand and respect power. Pussy-footing around these people is an invitation for them to despise you and to dominate you.
With this in mind, and the fact that those in the world who would object most strongly to such an invasion already hate them with a vengeance just for who they are, what have Bush, Blair, Howard and the rest got to lose?

Just a few thoughts.

Algol · 2004-09-20 01:39:07

There are hundreds of people in the bowels of the Pentagon who spend all their time looking at the world and its political dynamics. They have access to information we don't, from sensitive sources you and I will never hear about, and they make contingency plans which are never published.

These are the same people who didnt see 9/11 comimg, presumably.

Or are you insinuating they let it happen for an exciuse for war?!?!?

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-20 05:00:37

No, Algol, I'm not insinuating that 9/11 was anticipated and allowed to happen. While intelligence organisations can quite plausibly gauge general trends in world affairs, I believe predicting individual acts of terrorism is necessarily very much more difficult.
An appropriate analogy might be weather prediction. A showery weekend might be forecast with a considerable degree of accuracy but predicting the actual time of each shower, and the amount of rain which falls in each shower, is next-door to impossible.

I don't believe governments are very good at keeping things secret, despite the feelings of the UFO fraternity/sorority(! ). The distinct possibility that they might be found out would be enough to dissuade any government from staging or acquiescing in something as apocalyptic as the attacks on U.S. soil staged in 2001. You would also have to assume, in such a cloak-and-dagger scenario, that everyone involved is a mass-murdering traitor to his/her own country.
I know many of you are more than happy to brand George W. Bush with any appellation of evil, no matter how base and low(! ), but you then have to accept that everyone connected with the plot is as demonic as George!!

I'm always fascinated that the same people who laugh at UFO conspiracy theorists insisting world governments are covering up the existence of an alien presence here on Earth, are perfectly happy to entertain notions of the most fantastic conspiracies when it comes down to politics!

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-20 07:27:58

Since I spent a good chunk of the weekend arguing with kook socialists and neo-nazis about the Iraq war (incidentally both groups made essentially the same arguments) I'm curious as to why those here who oppose it hold that view. I mean the real reasons, not some Halliburton oil-stealing nonsense but real defensible positions with some relation to reality. If anyone wants to try and really get to the heart of the matter, I'm willing to listen fairly.

Hint: there are some valid objections that don't revolve around conspiratorial fantasies.

Well, while we're being fair, even the Halliburton thing is on the table. If that's your reason, good enough. Dick Cheney's insatiable desire to drink oil and the blood of foreign children is just as valid.

Palomar · 2004-09-20 07:40:28

*I'm on the look-out for talk from gov't officials regarding exit strategies.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-09-20 07:47:08

Since I spent a good chunk of the weekend arguing with kook socialists and neo-nazis about the Iraq war (incidentally both groups made essentially the same arguments) I'm curious as to why those here who oppose it hold that view. I mean the real reasons, not some Halliburton oil-stealing nonsense but real defensible positions with some relation to reality. If anyone wants to try and really get to the heart of the matter, I'm willing to listen fairly.
Hint: there are some valid objections that don't revolve around conspiratorial fantasies.
Well, while we're being fair, even the Halliburton thing is on the table. If that's you're reason, good enough. Dick Cheney's insatiable desire to drink oil and the blood of foreign children is just as valid.

"A bridge too far. . ." or "Writing checks America can't cash. . ."

Ever play the board game Axis & Allies?

Because of the Iraq invasion we need to build more infantry pieces and fewer missile defense pieces. If we trim back the tax cut for the upper 1% (OR trim back missile defense) and raise another division or two of plain old infantry and double or triple our special forces we maybe can still salvage the Iraq mess.

Winning Iraq will NOT end the "War on Terror" but losing Iraq will cause no end of heartache.

When Bush caved in Fallajuh and caved in Najaf, he proved (to me) that he was more interested in keeping casualties light until after the election than facing down Islamic radicalism. Not a good strategy for a war bin Laden predicts will last 100 years.

Once we called Sadr out, backing down was the worst possible follow up.

The original invasion was a 49 "Yes" to 51 "No" for me. The biggest NO was my fear America would not have the gumption to see it through to the end and in that case, not going in would have been better.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-20 07:50:05

*I'm on the look-out for talk from gov't officials regarding exit strategies.

And that's another thing, this "exit strategy" stuff is entirely the wrong way of looking at any operation of this scope.

I don't direct this at you, Cindy, but just out there in general.

If we focus on when we can leave in order to withdraw as soon as possible, it's over. The insurgents will just hole up until we're gone then take over. We don't leave until we have a stable and at least moderately pro-American government in place, we can't. If it takes a year, a decade, or if we still have a garrison there fifty years from now we can't even look like we're itching to leave due to enemy action. If we're going to focus on "exit" as the prime goal we might as well pull everyone out now and level the whole country, save everyone alot of grief.

If we cut and run in Iraq we will have lost the war. We will have confirmed the enemy's perception of us as weak, cowering people unable to sustain a fight for our own surivival, and we will endure many more attacks as a result.

Only then, when we cut and run due to pressure at home will we have lost. Only then will this be another Vietnam. And those dead soldiers from all the coalition nations will have truly died for nothing.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-20 07:59:42

"A bridge too far. . ." or "Writing checks America can't cash. . ."

Okay, a valid concern.

If we trim back the tax cut for the upper 1% (OR trim back missile defense) and raise another division or two of plain old infantry and double or triple our special forces we maybe can still salvage the Iraq mess.

I'm leaning towards trimming missile defense myself, but that's based entirely on knowing what "trimming tax cuts" regardless of who they target means from the mouths of the Left. But you are right in that we need more troops in-theater to win the war, though whether we need more to win the Iraq campaign is largely a question of our approach.

I agree that we will need more troops in the coming years if not today. Transfers from Europe and elsewhere may be able to fill that need, or may not. Otherwise we need to step up recruitment.

Winning Iraq will NOT end the "War on Terror" but losing Iraq will cause no end of heartache.

Absolutely right.

When Bush caved in Fallajuh and caved in Najaf, he proved (to me) that he was more interested in keeping casualties light until after the election than facing down Islamic radicalism.

Can't argue with that either. If we didn't have the resolve to stick it out we shouldn't have gone in, but now that we're there we have no option but to press on with whatever force is necessary.

We need to push harder now, there is no other sane option.

The original invasion was a 49 "Yes" to 51 "No" for me. The biggest NO was my fear America would not have the gumption to see it through to the end and in that case, not going in would have been better.

Again, we agree on far more than not it seems.

Though my own vote went the other way.

BWhite · 2004-09-20 08:04:03

*I'm on the look-out for talk from gov't officials regarding exit strategies.
And that's another thing, this "exit strategy" stuff is entirely the wrong way of looking at any operation of this scope.

The fault also lies wiht the Adminsitration who "sold" the war as a cakewalk.

Go back to my New Mars posts from the time of the actual invasion. I argued plainly that Round 1 (bye - bye - Saddam) would be easy enough. Getting the Shia, Kurds and Sunni to live together afterwards was the far more difficult and important Round 2.

The current insurgency is not all the work of foreign fighters, although they certainly exacerbate the situation. Our mistake (IMHO) was not turning the country over to Sistani after we whacked Saddam.

But no, Chalabi persuaded the neo-cons that a new Iraq would adopt a blue/white flag and give prompt diplomatic recognition to Israel, a suggestion that undermined our ability to forge a stable Iraq.

clark · 2004-09-20 08:04:52

We've lost. Well, not precisely, but when the dust settles, and we see the end results, we will realize that we could not win.

We went looking for WMD and found none, so we went looking to create a democracy where none can succeed.

Placing any number of guns and boots in the sand for however many years you want won't make them democratic. Every day we are there we will continue to be a thorn in the proverbial paw of Iraq in particular, and Islam in general. Our mere presence, be it out in the deserts or from Hollywood will inflame the poor and uneducated (which they have quite a lot) and serve as a rallying cry for the Sadr's of the world to collect the disenfranchised together. We are, and will be blamed for every ill under the sun.

We have slit our own throat because we trumpet democracy so we will be forced to leave (which will serve no one's interest) by democratic vote, or forced to absolve and/or ignore any number of democratic "council's", or support a corrupt democratic council that does not follow the will of the people. The latter alternative leads to an internal civil war where we (the US) must support the pro-american government from the popular insurgency that feels that the current government is unrepresenative of their wishes.

We won't be able to win in any scenerio (long term). Eventually, we will be expelled (one way or another) and the religious clerics will establish a theocratic democracy.

We supported Saddam, and others like him, because he was a stop gap measure to prevent the breakout of radical Islam. You can do business and make deals with a secular man, but it's hard to come to a middle ground with the zealots.

Of course, I may be wrong and old W may just pull a rabbit out of his ass. But I doubt it.

BWhite · 2004-09-20 08:06:14

We've lost. Well, not precisely, but when the dust settles, and we see the end results, we will realize that we could not win.

DUDE!

We missed you man! (Or at least I did. . . )

:;):

= = =

But! I am already late for an appointment. Drats.

clark · 2004-09-20 08:13:17

Missed by one,
not missed by some,
or so I tend to believe
But fear not
you rowdy lot
Cause I'm clark, and I like to peeve.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-20 08:14:33

The fault also lies wiht the Adminsitration who "sold" the war as a cakewalk.

But they didn't. Media pundits sold it as a cakewalk, Bush was out there talking about a "long war" and staying the course.

But no, Chalabi persuaded the neo-cons that a new Iraq would adopt a blue/white flag and give prompt diplomatic recognition to Israel, a suggestion that undermined our ability to forge a stable Iraq.

Yes, the neo-cons are an odd lot. A strange combination of elaborate long-term planning (the MidEast democracy domino effect) and utterly foolish implementation at times, Chalabi being a case in point.

The question is how much of this apparent blundering is sincere incompetence, how much is intentional to draw in terrorist fighters to the new front, and how much just got screwed up on the way to implementation. All three play a role, but we don't have enough information to know the ratio.

We can't fold up and leave, but on the other hand they have to believe they can win if they are to be drawn to where we have troops on the ground. Otherwise we have to hunt them to the ends of the Earth after every attack.

Algol · 2004-09-20 08:55:54

Bush was out there talking about a "long war" and staying the course.

Which is why he dressed up in a flight suit and unfurled a massive banner which read "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" on the deck of an aircraft carrier. ???

The question is how much of this apparent blundering is sincere incompetence, how much is intentional to draw in terrorist fighters to the new front, and how much just got screwed up on the way to implementation.

But we were already fighting the terrorists on the closest thing they had to a 'home turf'. Thats what Afghanistan was all about. We didnt need a 'new front', we already had a front where we were fighting them. :bars2:

If your ultimate aim is to invade the entire middle east then Iran is just as 'invadeable' from afghanistan as Iraq - if not more so. Invading Iran first would make more sense beacause

a - there are less fronts and borders involved.
b - sadham (irans only significant neighbour) would have been highly unlikely to do anything to help Iran during the invasion. (being secular and a sunni he has little or no incentive, common ground or recourse to significantly affect or help irans population or theocratic leadership)
c - sadham would have been ill placed to do anything to hinder the occupation once invasion was complete (see above) unlike iran affecting iraqs shiite population the other way round.

Iraq could then be invaded, continuing the theme of minimising border issues and obvious lack of iranian interference - continue on to syria and egypt at your leisure/if you are so inclined etc.

Establishing democracy in the middle east is also a non-starter as democracy is (was) close to break-out in iran at the moment anyway. Helping democracy in iran which has a history of democracy, wants democracy and in which the population are interested in politics/student uprisings (its all the same to me ) and which has a homogeneos shiite poulation is far more likely to lead to a break-out of democracy in the rest of the middle east (starting with iraq due to its restless shiite majority) than the other way round. Invading Iraq has strengthened the hand of the religous hard-liners and if anything made democracy less likely and increased the necessity for possible invasion.

Gotta run now - but you get my point ???

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-20 09:21:07

Which is why he dressed up in a flight suit and unfurled a massive banner which read "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

I'm concerned with before the war, some stupid stunt after the fall of Saddam's regime has nothing to do with how it was sold in the first place.

But we were already fighting the terrorists on the closest thing they had to a 'home turf'. Thats what Afghanistan was all about.

One front. They can't afford a sustained campaign on two fronts while we can. Draw them out, make them move and expend resources, make it easier for Iranian and Syrian fighters to jump in as well so that we can deal with them all in one area.

On a long-term perspective, Afghanistan has little prospect of becoming a thriving democratic country quickly, and therefore was not suitable for exerting the sort of political pressure needed in the region. Iraq can still be worked with. Even if we have to break it up.

Establishing democracy in the middle east is also a non-starter as democracy is (was) close to break-out in iran at the moment anyway.

While I hope I'm wrong, the idea that Iran just needs a little nudge toward democracy strikes me as overly optimistic. They have some rumblings, but it isn't going to just spontaeneously happen of its own accord. If making Iraq a pro-Western democracy was an unrealistic hope, prompting Iran to do it on its own is delusional.

Iran needs more time to "cook" in a sense. More of the population needs an example to show them what's possible and the Iranian government needs to be squeezed. Being wedged between two pro-American democracies will help immensely in both regards, which is why we must do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal in Iraq.

And that is where we are now, whatever views we might have had at the outset, we are in it for the long haul now and cannot yield the ground.

clark · 2004-09-20 09:43:14

Quick exit from Iraq is likely

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cs … 20.html]BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

One front. They can't afford a sustained campaign on two fronts while we can. Draw them out, make them move and expend resources, make it easier for Iranian and Syrian fighters to jump in as well so that we can deal with them all in one area.

We can't afford a sustained campaign on multiple fronts with an enemy that has no basess, no flag, and is waging a gurillea war. Our military is not designed for this.

They arm a disenfranchised man with a gun. If he kills an American, they win. If he dies, he becomes a martyr and they win. There is an endless number of these men who have few if any opportunites other than waging jihad.

We are still dealing with them in Afghanistan, and we will be dealing with them everywhere we go. If we were serious about drawing them out, we should have put more troops there- as it is, we have to few now. How does insufficient man power to wage an effective war on two fronts make any sense?

I might add that while we are off splitting our power, and going it alone, the US military is effectively stymied to prevent any other people from mucking about. We have limited our projection power because all we can do for now is Iraq (which is why we are bowing to Chinese pressure not to sell arms to Tawian). It's also why we have to sit down at the table with North Korea. It's also why we have to watch Europe develop their own standing national army.

The terroists were in Afghanistan and Pakistan- they were not in Iraq (unless you count the one training base in the Kurdish controlled north).

And that is where we are now, whatever views we might have had at the outset, we are in it for the long haul now and cannot yield the ground.

Up sh*t creek without a paddle is another way of saying it too.

All the warm feel good fuzzies aside, we didn't go into Iraq to save the damned foreigners from themselves. We went into Iraq to topple Saddam, and to move troops out of Mecca and into another staging area to project our power and influence within the Middle East. That was the f*cking goal, and we have been very succesful on that front. It wasn't about WMD, that was a pretext. It wasn't about democracy, that was an exscuse- a flag to rally behind. And it sure as hell wasn't about making uis any safer because there was no threat there.

It was, and is, about ensuring US dominance, which is why no one other than the British and a few other nations who wanted to suck up joined in the fray.

There won't be a democracy at the end of the day in Iraq, because if there is, we will be forced to leave. They do not like us. If we do stay, everyone will have an exscuse for any type of civil war you might imagine.

Palomar · 2004-09-20 10:53:56

*I'm on the look-out for talk from gov't officials regarding exit strategies.
And that's another thing, this "exit strategy" stuff is entirely the wrong way of looking at any operation of this scope.
I don't direct this at you, Cindy, but just out there in general.
If we focus on when we can leave in order to withdraw as soon as possible, it's over. The insurgents will just hole up until we're gone then take over. We don't leave until we have a stable and at least moderately pro-American government in place, we can't.
...
If we cut and run in Iraq we will have lost the war. We will have confirmed the enemy's perception of us as weak, cowering people unable to sustain a fight for our own surivival, and we will endure many more attacks as a result.

*Yeah. I should have been more specific (was needing to run to breakfast, then an appointment)...what's the long-range scenario? ::shakes head:: Part of the stated purpose was to secure their liberty and get them up onto their own feet, then get for home with only a minimum of US troops remaining.

Yesterday I saw 2 headlines; even Republicans are getting the jitters about the situation as it is now in Iraq. Comparisons to Vietnam came up again -- that war dragged on for 11 years.

Will -this- take 11 years? When the Republicans are criticizing the administration openly and expressing serious concerns...(and less than 2 months before the elections!)

"Exit strategy" poor use of a term on my part. I understand where you're coming from.

--Cindy

Dook · 2004-09-20 11:21:24

I think the US by simply being there has attracted the insurgents and certainly Iran and Syria have their hands in it too. We should accelerate our timeline in Iraq. Elections should take place in October rather than January and once Iraq has an elected leader we should pull our troops off of the streets and put them in well fortified bases and at the airport.

We have to let Iraq find it's own way, their own type of democracy. I'm sure there is still a long and tough road ahead. If the US pulls back it's troops then the Iraqi's will have to step in and fight the insurgents with air/helicopter support from the US. Religious leaders (Al Sadr) will no doubt continue to be a problem, likely attempting to overturn a democratic leader and place himself at the top like in Iran. I don't believe we would allow this but at any rate we need to begin stepping back and Iraqi citizens need to step up and take an interest in their own country to end the insurgency. They need to expel these rebels from their towns and cities

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-20 11:30:02

I'm not trying to single you out Cindy, your post just reminded me of something that needs to be said.

Part of the stated purpose was to secure their liberty and get them up onto their own feet, then get for home with only a minimum of US troops remaining.

Quite right. The problem is that too many people, including some of those behind the operation, were overly optimistic about the timetable.

You can't build a representative government without a culture that can support it. You can't build a culture in a year.

Which means we should have been and now need to be prepared to have troops there on a timeframe similar to Japan or Germany after WWII. It doesn't mean the fighting will last anywhere near that long, just that the work of remaking the nation will take decades and afterwards we'd do well to watch it and guide them a bit. It's a multi-generation project and I have no problem with that, it's what it takes. But the question is whether we have the stomach to finish the fight, the resolve to finish what comes after and the attention span to remember what the hell we're doing in the first place.

As an aside, if the answer is "no" we can forget about space settlements as well.

We are either seeing the beginning of a spread of western democratic ideals into a region of the world dominated by despots, or we are witnessing the beginnings of the worldwide failure of democracy on a scale that may be unrecoverable.

And therein lies our quandry, not the presence of suicidal religious fanatics but that we are trying to fight a war to bring democracy to a people to whom it is alien while trying to conduct that war in the arena of democracy. You can't fight a war by public opinion, when we started getting overly concerned with the whimperings of an increasingly squeamish public is when we started losing. It's partly why we stalemated in Korea, why we lost Vietnam, and if we lose Iraq it will be for the same reasons.

If we are going to accept terrorism on our own soil and respond to each incident in some half-assed Clintonesque manner then we can keep doing what we're doing, agonizing over every setback as though the world is on fire. Or we can take the fight to the enemy and finish it, but it's costly in blood and gold.

A thousand soldiers in a foreign land or three thousand civilians in our own, that's the kind of choice we have. Shitty either way, but I know which way I'd go.

BWhite · 2004-09-20 11:49:25

Cobra - maybe GWB "said" long haul and maybe not, \

but. . .

Anyone who openly expressed the need for lots and lots of troops and money was fired. Remember that Iraqi oil revenues were to pay for reconstruction?

Dook · 2004-09-20 12:17:04

I won't accept thousands more American dead. We need an exit strategy. My personal opinion is that we turn Iraq over sooner rather than later and step back and assist while packing our bags. Then we get out and leave it to them to fix.

clark · 2004-09-20 13:17:11

It doesn't mean the fighting will last anywhere near that long, just that the work of remaking the nation will take decades and afterwards we'd do well to watch it and guide them a bit.

They will fight us as long as we are there.

Putting everything in perspective, they fight us even though they are hopelessly outmatched. We have bigger guns, better armor, and our troops are well trained. We are richer, smarter, and have the advantage in almost every respect.

Almost every respect. They have time. Time to whittle us down, to demoralize us with every roadside bomb, infrastructure attack, and general terror. They can wait us out because they have absolutely nothing to lose.

We do though. We have everything to lose. And as we kill more of them, as we become more oppressive or back those who will oppress them, we will diminish in the worlds eyes. We will only act as a reason to continue to fight, to continue to rebel.

We can't give them the option of a vote and then expect them to vote as we wish, but that is expressly our goal. And it is because of this singular reason that we will fail.

We're not talking about rebuilding a nation over a matter of decades, preparing for the day when they will be ready to assume their own control. We are planning on giving them a voice in a years time- and we have to in order to maintain any semblance of "victory". They will vote us out, or they will drive us out, but either way, we will have to leave.

If we don't the place will go up in flames, and of course, when we do, it will go up in flames.

Going into Iraq to build a democracy was the last thing we really wanted to do (at least this administration). That's why we supported Saddam, and why we supported the status quo for so long. We find ourselves now in the unenviable situation of having to place our money where our mouth is because we found no WMD, and things are going so poorly.

But the question is whether we have the stomach to finish the fight, the resolve to finish what comes after and the attention span to remember what the hell we're doing in the first place.

What the hell are we doing there in the first place? WMD's? That was the reason we had to go now, and quickly. Democracy? That's the reason we are staying but looking at the door. Security? Opening a new front where no terroists were in the first place, while forgeting about the previous front, with to few troops strikes me as ill conceived.

Ever play three card monty? The trick is to keep you guessing, to constantly be in motion so you never have time to remember where the card is. "Look, job loss- wait, ORANGE alert!" "Over there, loss of civil liberties- wait, our way of life is threatened by possible WMD's!" "How about that, no WMD's- did you hear, we're here to spread democracy and our way of life!"

I think I have a pretty good attention span, but even I have a hard time keeping track of the changing winds.

We are either seeing the beginning of a spread of western democratic ideals into a region of the world dominated by despots, or we are witnessing the beginnings of the worldwide failure of democracy on a scale that may be unrecoverable.

Either the end of the world, or our salvation? Bleh. We will have a failure of democracy when we fail to sufficiently safe guard our own liberty and choice here at home. I think in that respect, the fact we are so blindly and willingly giving up so much for so little, we may just see the doomsday your suggest. But Iraq won't be a reason, it will merely be a symptom of our own illness.

It's partly why we stalemated in Korea, why we lost Vietnam, and if we lose Iraq it will be for the same reasons.

Or, might I suggest, that we lost those wars, and this one, because it was less than noble, and we fought them for ill conceived reasons. No one really complained when we went into kick Saddam out of Kuwiat. No one really complained when we went into Afghanistan.

Or we can take the fight to the enemy and finish it, but it's costly in blood and gold.

Not a single terroist was from Iraq. We invaded Iraq before we were through with Afghanistan. Osama was hiding in Pakistan- not Iraq.

A thousand soldiers in a foreign land or three thousand civilians in our own, that's the kind of choice we have. Shitty either way, but I know which way I'd go.

And 10,000 soldiers mamied? Introduction of the draft again? 2 year combat stints for Army reserves? Our reputation reduced throughout the world?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-09-19 04:40:17

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#2 2004-09-19 05:27:40

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#3 2004-09-19 14:04:21

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#4 2004-09-19 19:15:29

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#5 2004-09-20 01:39:07

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#6 2004-09-20 05:00:37

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#7 2004-09-20 07:27:58

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#8 2004-09-20 07:40:28

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#9 2004-09-20 07:47:08

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#10 2004-09-20 07:50:05

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#11 2004-09-20 07:59:42

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#12 2004-09-20 08:04:03

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#13 2004-09-20 08:04:52

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#14 2004-09-20 08:06:14

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#15 2004-09-20 08:13:17

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#16 2004-09-20 08:14:33

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#17 2004-09-20 08:55:54

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#18 2004-09-20 09:21:07

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#19 2004-09-20 09:43:14

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#20 2004-09-20 10:53:56

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#21 2004-09-20 11:21:24

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#22 2004-09-20 11:30:02

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#23 2004-09-20 11:49:25

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#24 2004-09-20 12:17:04

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

#25 2004-09-20 13:17:11

Re: Blair 'was warned of Iraq chaos' - words cant describe how im feeling.....

Board footer