Democrats & Good News In Iraq

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Scrum

We are just making our next round of bad guys to fight.

The GOP has to have something to run on in 2016.

We like to fight real tangible enemies, not just the evil Republican (Americans) who want to stem the tide of your government handouts.

We don't like to divide the country so firmly that one political side benefits while our real enemies rejoice in our weakness.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by motivez

I really have no idea what point you're trying to make, perhaps you'd be willing to clarify

looks to me like he's saying you're just putting on a front to make it seem like you're 'military friendly'

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

We like to fight real tangible enemies, not just the evil Republican (Americans) who want to stem the tide of your government handouts.

We don't like to divide the country so firmly that one political side benefits while our real enemies rejoice in our weakness.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

I'm glad someone else caught that.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yes, he pointed out how the political end is doing poorly. I've said that a million times in this thread. I understand that. I realize that. I've SAID IT..> REPEATEDLY!! Why can't other things about Iraq also be true AND stated? Why can't other people even hint to the notion that perhaps from a military standpoint in Iraq we're starting to see some progress. That's the kicker and the exact point of my making this thread.

The problem is that we have yet to see how military progress in Iraq will help form the political solutions as necessary. If we are currently making so much military progress, yet at the same time the Sunni's are quiting the government, what does the military progress really matter when what is needed is the political solution? If the military progress and the political solutions do not directly correlate, our military efforts with the surge and 160,000 troops in Iraq are not sustainable gains. What that essentially means is that 160,000 American troops are necessary to keep the violence down to this level (which is in no way low) but the length of time this will be necessary is completely unknown. That is not a solution to Iraq, in fact if military accomplishments and political solutions do not correlate, it isn't even a good band-aid.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by thomez

The problem is that we have yet to see how military progress in Iraq will help form the political solutions as necessary. If we are currently making so much military progress, yet at the same time the Sunni's are quiting the government, what does the military progress really matter when what is needed is the political solution? If the military progress and the political solutions do not directly correlate, our military efforts with the surge and 160,000 troops in Iraq are not sustainable gains. What that essentially means is that 160,000 American troops are necessary to keep the violence down to this level (which is in no way low) but the length of time this will be necessary is completely unknown. That is not a solution to Iraq, in fact if military accomplishments and political solutions do not correlate, it isn't even a good band-aid.

Very good point. We should have done the surge two years ago or sooner. We would have had a much better defined political picture now if we did. The insurgency becomes an excuse for weak leadership in Iraq and more infighting.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Very good point. We should have done the surge two years ago or sooner.

We did. We've surged many times.

[motivez]

We should have done the "surge" as an integral part of the war from the start, like General Eric Shinseki advised:

On February 25, 2003, four months before the end of his term as Chief of Staff of the Army, Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he thought an occupying force of several hundred thousand men would be needed to stabilize postwar Iraq. He was pressed to provide a range by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI). Below is the exchange:[citation needed]

SEN. LEVIN: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?

GEN. SHINSEKI: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --

SEN. LEVIN: How about a range?

GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.

Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, called Shinseki's estimate "far off the mark" [14] and "wildly off the mark". Wolfowitz said it would be "hard to believe" more troops would be required for post-war Iraq than to remove Saddam Hussein from power. [1] Specifically, Wolfowitz said to the House Budget Committee on February 27, 2003:

DEP. SEC. WOLFOWITZ: There has been a good deal of comment - some of it quite outlandish - about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army - hard to imagine.

Too bad Bush only listens to the Generals who tell him what he wants to hear.. a shame he was replaced instead of embraced.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by thomez

We did. We've surged many times.

This isn't a new strategy at all. We've continually deployed more troops around various holidays, etc.. where the violence is expected to peak.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

I really have no idea what point you're trying to make, perhaps you'd be willing to clarify

A very failed attempt to place liberal discontent at the feat of George W. Bush. I do not buy the sudden love and respect of our military or the CIA for that matter by the far left. I have been around far to long for that.

Perhaps your opinion is genuine, and forgive me if I implied otherwise, but such sentiment it does not travel far.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by P/N

Yes, you can just picture the Netroots desperately trolling the internet for bad news about Iraq in order to place our inevitable defeat more firmly in their minds.


Pass the Popcorn.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Yes, you can just picture the Netroots desperately trolling the internet for bad news about Iraq in order to place our inevitable defeat more firmly in their minds.


Pass the Popcorn.

As if reporting bad news makes it happen.

Be mad at the people whos ineptitude caused this, not at the masses for noticing.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You touch a deeper point and one that I don't think many people here realize...

Where do you HONESTLY see Iraq in 3-4 years? As mentioned above, the best and brightest have left, strict sectarian lines have been drawn, the infrastructure is collapsing as Americans are sick of giving them so much money

The thing is, it's not going to be a big terrorist haven, it's just going to be a big fucking mess of warlords and eventually we're going to have to get on our knees and beg the rest of the world to bail us out...it's going to be more humiliating than Vietnam...

Honestly, we're the leader of the free world but who the hell will follow us again?

Hey we made a stand just like we did in viet nam. It did not happen for us in Viet nam and Iraq looks like it is impossible yet maybe not. I hope we help make it a safe place and they make it a country. We will be respected for going in with our money and troops. Others may not say it but they will know that from now on it is possible that we will act and we did, and who else could take a army half way around the world and fight a war. They will now know we will attack if we want because we did even after viet nam.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

As if reporting bad news makes it happen.

For some people the non-reporting of good news makes it not happen.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

For some people the non-reporting of good news makes it not happen.

No, it's the fact that the bad news outweighs good news.


Would you be excited about a new haircut if your head was on fire?


It's fantastic that we are building schools and roads and such. But we can't get these people to stop killing us or each other. They don't even have basic services up after 4 years of occupation.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

For some people the non-reporting of good news makes it not happen.

I think what people (rightfully) get upset about is the reporting of good news when it is made to look like progress (towards an end), when in fact the building of schools or the local market not getting bombed for a year really has little or nothing to do with real progress, which can only come in the form of political solutions.

I don't think anyone is disappointed to see the feel-good stories, but some get upset when they are not put in perspective and give false hope related to our success or failure in Iraq. The number of schools being built has really no bearing on when the US-occupation will come to an end because it doesn't relate to Shia-Sunni political solutions that have yet to come about after 4 years, and which seem to get farther from fruition all the time.

[Thorgrim]

I'm at a loss for words how there is conservative TV (Fox News), conservative magazines (weekly standard) conservative newspapers (Washington Times) conservative radio (no list needed) conservative websites (redstate, instapundit, etc)

And ANY conservative can complain that something conservative is "not being reported"

give me a fucking break, if right wingers want a story public, itll be on fox news that night and covered by all the other conservative media

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Don't you love how KG has completely ignored the fact that we're arming those who have just got done killing US Marines?

Infact, we are REWARDING them throwing all sorts of funding (really its tribute) at them off because we couldn't defeat them

"millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute"

My how we've become cowards in comparison to our founding fathers

we could certainly completey eradicate any enemy by firebombing Iraq, basically burn the village down to save it. However, we have progressed to change how we fight wars, I guess you are looking for more civilian deaths for a sign of progress. That is certainly an interesting way to look at military victor.

Also you would rather continute to fight rather than make peace, what kind of liberal are you? How much money did the Marshall plan pour into Europe following WWII, was that tribute as well?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Scrum

As if reporting bad news makes it happen.

Be mad at the people whos ineptitude caused this, not at the masses for noticing.

Everybody reports the bad news. I heard about the 200 plus deaths today on Fox. Just not everybody spins it into another attack on policy.