| Author | Message | ||
     Peanut Citizen Username: Peanut Post Number: 2 Registered: 3-2003 |
What South Mountain Peace Action doesn't seem to understand is that we are at war against radical Islam. Dictatorships in the Middle East have stifled all criticism of their regimes and focused all anger at the West and at Israel. There are only three ways for us to win: 1) Change the culture in the Middle East so that tolerant liberal democracy can find a home, 2) Kill all the radical Islamists, or 3) Some combination of 1 and 2. The war in Iraq was an attempt to change the culture in the Middle East. Right now, the only Arab country with a free press is Iraq. Soon, the only Arab country in the Middle East to hold free elections will be Iraq. Most of the country is already accepting of our occupation. Most of the attacks against our troops are coming from the "Sunni Triangle". We are winning. We are also achieving goal number 2, since our presence in Iraq is drawing every aspiring martyr to Iraq. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0825/p01s03-woiq.html Did you ever see one of those lamps that draw in flies and moths. Our presence in Iraq is one of those lamps. The terrorists are the flies and moths. The flies and moths never win. We will win this war. It will not be quick or easy, but we will win because we cannot afford to lose. Why is this so hard to understand?} | ||
| hello Citizen Username: Hello Post Number: 94 Registered: 7-2003 |
cjc- your prevarication is out of control. when what were in hindsight very low initial estimates of the cost of the war were floated, the bush admin lied and said they were too high and even (i believe) fired those who offered them. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1706 Registered: 12-2001  |
There were many possible next steps in the war on terrorism following the disruption of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Attacking Iraq was once such option. There were and are other options. To say that not attacking Iraq is equivalent to doing nothing is simply incorrect. If we proceeded with a effort to infiltrate terrorist organizations, that would have been doing a lot. On the other hand, it would have been invisible to the press. The comparison to WW II is not valid. The reason the Allies waited so long before standing up to Hitler was precisely because they knew the cost of war. The bloody memory of WW I was quite fresh in everybodys' mind. What I will be interested to see is the reaction of the country when we are asked to make some sacrifice for the war on terror. So far, only those in the Armed Forces and their families have been making a sacrifice. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 45 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hello -- to refresh your memory: Shinseki -- former general and commander of the army -- said the occupying troop strength would be "several hundreds of thousands" troops, which Wolfowitz said was "wildly off the mark" -- and it's true. If one thinks "couple" is 2, "few" is 3, and "Several" is four and above, our current troop level is roughly 150K -- less than half of what Shinseki testified to. He also was sacked cuz the Army is the last arm of the military that will downsize or be reformulated willingly and adapt to the changing nature of warfare today. As for cost, per the Lehrer News Hour March 5th, 2003, the administration only floated a FIRST year cost of 60-95B depending on the length of the war. Rumsfeld didn't go beyond that due to the variables inherent to war. We've seen that the big shooting (division against division fighting) is over, and we're quickly into the reconstruction/occupation phase -- costs which no one could begin to accurately estimate. And Tjohn, you're right on my 'nothing' salvo. That was overly broad. But infiltration is not able to be accomplished short-term to a near-term threat, especially when we were decimated in the human intelligence area pre-Bush combined with the reluctance to hire/pay people who have dark and nasty backgrounds (thank The Torch Torricelli for that one). I'll bet that effort is underway. You can do both at once. Why don't we sacrifice that stupid drug benefit if we're so concerned about deficits. | ||
| hello Citizen Username: Hello Post Number: 95 Registered: 7-2003 |
cjc- from a source you know: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/26/203407.shtml quote: Speculation about the price tag for prosecuting a war in the Middle East started months ago with former Bush senior economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey predicting war expenses could top $200 billion. Mitch Daniels, White House Budget Office chief, had put the cost somewhere near $20 billion. lindsey "resigned", of course, soon after interjecting an inconvenient fact into the propaganda campaign. | ||
| OK, it's Straw Man Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 988 Registered: 10-2001 |
Peanut, You are correct in everyway. As Bush said from he beginning this war against terror would be a long hard fought fight. A tip of the hat to the Bush Administration for taking the fight to the Middle East as you say, rather then waiting for the fights to once again reach U.S. soil. Too many Americans have died during the Iraqi battle, but as you say a free and democratic society with elections, and civility will go along way toward stablizing the Middle East. Also, you may have seen this morning's info regarding Iran . It seems as if they all of a sudden have become more open to inspections, and sure enough it looks as if some Nuke material has been uncovered. Certainly, Iran's willingness to behave themselves is an off shoot of the Iraqi situation. No one wants to be next. Thank You Mr. President. I can't wait to vote for a Bush for a fourth time in 2004. | ||
| mfpark Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 18 Registered: 9-2001 |
How is the war on Iraq a blow against radical Islamic terrorism? Sadaam Hussein was an avowed enemy of the Iranian radicals who have been most involved in terrorist attacks on Western interests. That is why the US backed him in his horrible war against Iran. Osama bin Laden also was, according to most reports, opposed to Sadaam Hussein. President Bush went through all sorts of gyrations to justify this war against Iraq--first it was terrorism, and when that argument was shot down he claimed weapons of mass destruction--which still have not been found even though we have been crawling all over the country for months. The only thing the war against Iraq has to do with terrorism that I can see is that President Bush has created a new crucible for radical Islamist hatred of America--creating for people who already do not trust or like us one more example of how America will invade anyone anywhere in order to impose our will and way of life on them. I am not saying I necessarily agree with this viewpoint in the Arab "street"--only that he has given great fuel to those who already see us that way. I hate to say "I told you so" but greater minds than mine warned that this was a very likely outcome of a very poorly justified war. | ||
| montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 28 Registered: 6-2003 |
The U.N. has no executive powers to speak of, and the members of the U.N. have failed to reach agreement on important matters many times. Before criticizing the U.N. as a mechanism, though, it's worth asking if we would have been better served by any of the other means typically used by national governments co-ordinate their actions? I'd say that the Bush record in diplomacy speaks for itself. | ||
| OK, it's Straw Man Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 989 Registered: 10-2001 |
Liberals never understand real issues. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1707 Registered: 12-2001 |
Cjc, Funny thing about Rumsfeld and the U.S. Army. Rumsfeld seems enamoured of special ops warfare to the detriment of the traditional U.S. Army. He in intent on making the Army into a lean, mean fighting machine (i.e. much less heavy equipment such as Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles). In his zeal to reform, he seems to be conveniently overlooking the fact that the very heavy equipment of the 3rd Infantry Division is what allowed that unit to withstand and repulse Iraqi counterattacks with very few casualties. This is why the Army is resisting Rumsfeld and why he is sacking Army generals. In fact, I find it most extraordinary that Tommy Franks turned down a chance to the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff. It is almost unheard of for a general such as Franks to turn down the crowning opportuntiy of a brilliant career. It tells you that the friction between Rumsfeld and the Army is real and serious. If Rumsfeld gets his way and we get into a war with some country like N. Korea, a lot of soldiers will die because some old bureaucrat thought he knew something of ground combat but really didn't. | ||
| montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 30 Registered: 6-2003 |
The issue under discussion in this thread is whether the U.S. occupation force should remain in Iraq, or whether it should be withdrawn in favor of a multilateral force, and the legal responsibilities of the Occupying Power transferred to another body. This issue is real enough, given the financial and human costs of keeping the occupation force in place. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1708 Registered: 12-2001 |
But that is a dead issue. Given the current state of affairs, what country is going to commit the requisite number of soldiers. For sound reasons, it would be very difficult for a joint U.N. force to be as militarily effective as a unitary U.S. force. This is for reasons of command and control as well as quality of equipment. Anyway, there is no way that the people who pull Bush's strings will cede meaningful authority to the U.N. | ||
| montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 31 Registered: 6-2003 |
The challenges to a multilateral force are very great. On the other hand, the mission seems to be more like peacekeeping in support of civil power, not continuous large scale operations against opposing forces. Moreover, if repressive measures are needed to retain control, then other countries that benefit from the occupation should logically share some of the burden. There is no victory for the U.S. in Iraq, any more than there was for the British in South Africa (2nd Boer War, 1899 to 1902), which was also a fight between a democratic superpower and a local group of religious fanatics. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1709 Registered: 12-2001 |
What countries, other than those who wish us harm, benefit from our occupation of Iraq? | ||
| Paul Surovell Citizen Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 182 Registered: 2-2003 |
To follow up on Montagnard's last post, under a UN administration, peacekeeping will be able to focus on providing the necessary security and stability to establish a new representative Iraqi government. It will not be engaged in separating warring factions, nor will it have to carry out counter-insurgency operations. The US occupation is engaged in counter-insurgency operations because our efforts to create a provisional government are regarded by the Iraqis as an effort to establish a puppet government that will serve US interests, not Iraqi interests. The idea of a UN-based transition to Iraqi self-government is supported by France, whose position on Iraq has been consistently in line with reality. [For those of you whose knees just jerked at my reference to France, could you try avoiding the jingoistic rants and just address the issues raised? Thanks.] Here are excerpts from an interview with French Foreign Min. Villepin, who says that the UN is better positioned to facilitate the return to Iraqi self-government, and that a UN peacekeeping force in Iraq is a viable proposition. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/statmnts/2003/villepin_lemonde082303.asp Interview of Dominique de Villepin, Minister of Foreign Affairs, in "Le Monde" Newspaper Paris, August 23, 2003 QUESTION: What do you think of the situation in Iraq after the attack on UN headquarters in Baghdad? THE MINISTER: My sense is that we're looking at two dangers. The danger of confrontation: given the logic of force that has been engaged, we're seeing a rise in acts of terrorism causing a growing number of victims, which is arousing deep concern everywhere in France. Then there's the danger of break-up: I am struck by the fact that the Iraqi people are not being given responsibility in the actions today of the coalition. The risk is that these two factors will increasingly reduce the chances of success for Iraq's reconstruction. The situation is fraught with danger for the country and the entire region. So the question is how to act for the greatest effectiveness. I believe that the security-based approach is not the way to put Iraq back on track. One needs to move on from the idea of occupation to a policy for restoring Iraq's sovereignty. It is urgent to implement this new approach which should be a salutary electric shock for everyone. QUESTION: What does that mean in practical terms? THE MINISTER: The temptation exists to emphasize a security-based policy without investing in the political field. One needs to be lucid. I don't think that it is solely by declaring war on terrorism, by emphasizing the security aspect—even though obviously everything must be done on that front—that one will succeed. I think you do so by giving priority to a political démarche to give the Iraqis control of their future. That also implies the commitment of the entire international community, through the United Nations, to support and supervise the process and give it complete legitimacy. In such a context, there has to be the courage to take the measures that are required. We mustn't remain in a state of ambiguity even though we know there will be no easy solution. But the path of collective responsibility is the only one which will enable us to escape the trap we're caught in today. QUESTION: How? THE MINISTER: First of all by transforming the Iraqi governing council into a real provisional government capable of taking decisions independently so as to continue the effort to restore order to Iraq. With priority specifically for restoring essential public services. The provisional government should be asked to prepare elections, if possible by the end of the year, in order to elect a constituent assembly. A special representative of the UN secretary-general should be named to the government to supervise the political transition process. QUESTION: Does that rule out a US chief administrator? THE MINISTER: It is important for responsibility to be exercised by the Iraqis themselves. It is with the Iraqis and through them that we'll be able to break the impasse. We shouldn't just aim towards this objective; the timetable for political transition should be speeded up because the situation is serious and urgent. Once again, the main thing is to move from the security-based approach to the idea of sovereignty. To strengthen the legitimacy of the provisional government, you need the support of the UN and all the countries in the region as well as such organizations as the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. ..... in Iraq where we have to reverse the logic and take decisions on a par with the stakes. The real challenge is to accept the world as it is is without mistaking the objective. At the present time we're threatened with a vacuum in Iraq which can only be filled by the affirmation of Iraqi sovereignty. There's still the question of security. It will be up to the Iraqi government to say how it wishes to be aided by the international community. For now, security is a matter for the coalition forces. But if we are to be fully effective, we will not be content to adjust or broaden the present mechanisms. A real international force needs to be set up under UN mandate. The most urgent issue is sovereignty. It's legitimacy for an Iraqi authority. That has to be the starting point, not the end in itself. Embassy of France in the United States - August 23, 2003 | ||
| OK, it's Straw Man Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 997 Registered: 10-2001 |
Sounds like a plan. President Bush now seems to agree as well. Paul and President Bush, perfect together! There's nothing like being on the Ocean! | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1710 Registered: 12-2001 |
Bush seems to agree because Karl Rove has realized that Iraq is turning into a political liability for Bush and that some way is needed to cut our commitment to Iraq. Unfortunately for Bush, implementing an effective U.N. presence in Iraq will take a very long time even if all parties are totally willing. The NATO/U.N. presence in Afghanistan, a much less contentious theater of operations, doesn't strike me as being particularly effective. Afghanistan is still a mess and the Taliban is attempting a comeback, What I think we will see in the coming months is a spin attempt by Bush to claim that Iraq was a success. This will happen despite the fact that WoMD, our main reason for going to war, have not been found. This will happen whether or not we end up with a democratic government in Iraq which was our number one stated war aim. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 46 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hello -- LIndsay is gone for good reason. But as to the costs of the war Pentagon requested and got 62B. They'll ask for more -- in the AP today -- for reconstruction costs. Bremer is requesting it, not General Abizaid. Their initial request for money included some reconstruction costs in it. The larger point is with all the variables in war as well as reconstruction -- no one knows. Just like the Big Dig in Boston.... As for Newsmax -- they blow big time and I never use them mfpark --- so, we've gone into Iraq and made those wishing us ill so mad that they may do something against the US? Like....blow up a building in Manhattan? Paul -- the French's only reality is their own interests. They're total tools - not cuz they're French, but cuz they're tools! The UN can't do crap - they still haven't figured out Bosnia (more mass graves, but no WMD so why were we there) and Kosovo (two more Serb kids shot, no one talks to the authorities, civic mayhem at the hands of criminals, and the independent state of Kosovo that Albright said would not happen is still alive in the hearts of ethnic Albanians -- in the NY Times today). The UN can deliver food and that's about it. Tjohn -- what country that's against us has made out big-time? And using your "can only measure if things get better" yardstick that the UN gets to use, Carol Maloney, D-NY said today that things are improving and the Iraqi people want us there. Guess we are being successful, AND TO KOSOVO and BOSNIA MISSION ADVOCATES -- there were no WMD in those areas. And Saddam ranks right up there in the slaughter area. Is it just because Bush got us in Iraq? (answer - yes). did the UN bless the Kosovo war? (Answer -- No. Were you vocal then?). Did you bless Clinton in 1996? (answer -- yes, and not unhappy at all with his claim that the troops would be home by Xmas). Why do you hang on that insufferable organization of the UN? | ||
| JJC Citizen Username: Mercury Post Number: 87 Registered: 12-2002 |
Comparing the war/rebuilding to the Big Dig in Boston is apt. They are both boondoggles. And both were sold to their 'public' with misleading and incomplete information. It is not acceptable that with the gravity of this situation and the lives and money involved, that the US govt did not do their homework. To say that "we could not have expected this (1) resistance, (2) cost, (3) lack of world support" is just another example of the continuing spin from our leaders. While no one could pinpoint the precise cost of this war to the penny, surely they have known (since they began cooking this up) what the cost range would be. The 'war variables' you mention are all quite predictable. What they have done is to lowball the cost get us there and now the real bills are coming due. Bush knows very well that there is a limit to what the American people will contribute to this - and we are very close to it now. | ||
| montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 32 Registered: 6-2003 |
The costs of war can be estimated beforehand by competent generals. Whether these are conveyed accurately to the people's representatives is a different question. |
