To pull out would condemn hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Iraqis to be slaughtered just as his father did in 1991.

The rush to war sent our troops without adequate body armor and armored vehicles. (A Humvey is a Jeep replacement — not an assault vehicle.) The post combat phase as been totally mishandled. Sending the infantry to build a government is like asking a plumber to fix your TV.  Rumsfeld should be replaced and Bush, as Commander in Chief, should stop dodging the issue of too few troops by sloughing it off as what the field commanders say they need. His first loyalty is owed to our troops and our country — not his inept Secretary of Defense.

It is looking more like Vietnam each day with body count score keeping. We must take and hold territory. The only way for the Iraqi people to begin to govern themselves is to seal the borders and make neighborhoods safe. The plan Rumsfeld dumped called for 500,000 troops — we have about 150,000 there in a country of around 24 million. (Letting a civilian micro manage military startagy and tactics is like having your TV repairman do your plumbing.)

Tonight W will go on TV to tell us the National Guard will patrol our borders — too long ignored here and not a glimmer of hope he will do it over there.

Even if the US pulls out now, Iraq can still get pregnant. 

Not mine, something I read somewhere.

David,

Yes, but this is our baby now and we mustn’t just walk away.

In the book, “Cobra ll,” General Colin Powell (then Secretary of Stae Powell)
is quoted as telling Bush to be sure there were sufficient troops to handle the post combat phase.

His comment, “This is like an antique shop — you break it and you bought it,”

I’m pro-life, not pro-choice on this. 

To abort would be to abandon th Iraqi people to criminals, (Saddam released them.) and religious nuts, (even the “moderate” Sistani who ) posted a fatwa on his website, sistani.org, demanding that homosexuals “should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing.”

Yes, but this is our baby now and we mustn’t just walk away.

Sorry Whattheheck, that reasoning doesn’t do it for me.

Maybe it is better to let the baby walk on it’s own. Sooner or later it has to unless the USA plans to hold Iraq’s hand forever which is a possibility.

Or maybe the baby should be taken away from unfit parents. From what I have seen, the USA is doing a worse job than Saddam ever did.

“Or maybe the baby should be taken away from unfit parents.”

I like your analogy. :)

Any foster parents in mind? I think that is the crux of the problem. . .

Wolf, I am glad you liked it.  It is easy to like because it is so apt.

Which analogy do you prefer for reality? I like the former rather than the latter. 

Let them walk. They are reasonable people, let them do what they will, it seems only fair, it is what we all want and expect.

Same sort of question to you Whattheheck.

If Sistani and his ilk want to kill homosexuals, maybe you should let them. Why not?

Abortion kills unborn babies, Sistani lets you. Why not?

What’s the difference in, that coin of the realm, moral value?

“They are reasonable people”

Now you are just making fun!

I am laughing right now. 

They are as reasonable as anyone, even Wolf and Whattheck.

David,

re: Sistani, abortion, reason,

For some time now i have been proposing to my pro-choice friends that we amend Roe vs Wade —

Since it is “OK” to kill the kids, why not extend the period of choice to say, age 21?  See how he/she appears to be turning out. An Eiinstein or a Hitler?

Also, it would be a very effective backup when a parent said, “Go clean your room.

————————
Seriously, instead of pulling out we should do now what would have been done if Rumsfeld had left the planning to the professional military. Send in enough troops to take, hold and pacify the country.

It has been allowed to deteriorate into criminals, religious factions, and war lords all vying for their own interests. It is the same kind of situation where US citizens (or anyone) who is unprotected in his own neighborhood will not testify or cooperate with civic leaders for fear of reprisals.

Body count reporting, patrols in and out, GIs in living “safe” compounds, election polls looking bad, — politicians saying,  “It’s time to leave.”

Did somebody say, “Another Vietnam”?

It’s not our choice. We’re leaving. Doesn’t matter what anybody here thinks. The only question is how many people will die before we do leave. Anybody who argues anything else helps pat the dirt over another body.

The unprovoked invasion of Iraq was wrong at the outset and continues to be wrong. It was anything but a last resort.
Neo-conservative commmentators, and some liberals, argue that the US can’t “cut and run” and US troops have to remain in order to prevent a civil war and ensuing bloodbath for the entire region. Never mind any resemblance to excuses of why the US had to “stay the course” in Vietnam, continuing the maiming and killing of US troops and Vietnamese troops and civilians. The US presence in Iraq has proven tbe a catalyst for increased terrorism in the already volatile Middle East.
The unnecessary occupation has nothing to do with US security.
The term “civil war” has become a mattter of semantics. It is arguable that a civil war has been raging for some time, fueled in large part by the policies of the Bush Administration.
Further, with the exception of rebuilding this devastated country and caring for its wounded, how the Iraqis choose to govern themselves in none of the Bush Administration’s business.
It’s time to support the troops and begin bringing them home.

Lee Lears

Lee Lears,

“The term “civil war” has become a matter of semantics. It is arguable that a civil war has been raging for some time, fueled in large part by the policies of the Bush Administration.”

A perpetual civil war — These people have seen each other as adversaries forever. They are basically tribal and never have been truly a nation. A little historical reading by someone in the administration — and a lot less arrogance — would have eliminated any ideas of nation building or democratizing.

I just finished reading “Cobra ll,” by Gordon and Trainor, the Iraq war and post combat story. When a group of U.S. POWs were freed, (a Panamanian, a Philippine and a guy from Kansas) they told how their Iraqi guard could not conceive they looked so different yet, were all in the same army. “You no fighting each other — why?” This is the mind set of the people were are to “democratize.
” Never the less, we ARE there and unless enough troops are sent to enable the population to be free of intimidation no progress can be made — only a pretense of accomplishment.
(From Charting a Sane Course in the Middle East — also at this site.)”...we should not fool ourselves about the consequences of our departure for the Iraqi people.”

To me, to simply leave is unwise, irresponsible and unthinkably cruel.

Comparisons to previous wars are inevitable — the administration likes to compare to the post WW2 rebuilding of Germany and democratizing of Japan.  One important difference is those two countries had long histories as nations, were totally devastated and disarmed before rebuilding began.
Iraq is closer to the situation in Bosnia/Kosivo, yet Rumsfeld deliberately avoided any similar approach deeming it a failure.

Hitler’s micro managing of WW2 and overruling of the military professionals is being duplicated by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld with similar results.

Whattheheck,
Thanks for your response to my post. We’ll undoubtedly agree to disagree.
I understand your concern, and would say that to “begin brining them (US troops), home” is not the same as “...to simply leave”. One would involve a phased withdrawal based on a time table, the other would be precipitous and highly unlikely.
With the increased terrorism , (according to Amnesty International), that resulted from their country’s invasion,  Iraqis likely wish the US troops would depart. “Freedom” means freedom for corporations, not freedom for Iraqis. Iraqis need their infrastructure rebuilt and their wounded healed.
To state “we ARE there” and use that as an excuse to increase the number of troops in Iraq is reminiscent of the Vietnam War where citizens were told to continue “showing resolve” and “peace with honor” must be achieved while politicians and generals lied at the outset, (as did those in the Bush Administration about Iraq), and kept on lying in order to save face, while young men died.

How long must this open-ended war go on?
Unless some exit strategy is put in place young lives and tax dollars will continue to be squandered.

Regards,

Lee Lears

Lee Lears,

My reasons for wanting to increase troop strength are unrelated to business. We have never had enough troops to make Iraqi citizens secure and free from intimidation by violent factions.

Since border security here at home is a very low priority it is not surprising the current administration has not seen fit to do anything about it over there. In a ghetto threatened by drug gangs people fear to testify or report for the same reason.  Personal security is elemental and a precursor to law and order.

Removing troops will likely increase casualties, both our and Iraqis. Picture yourself armed with an automatic weapon an unruly crowd shouting in a language you cannot understand comes at you.  If you are backed up by tanks air support and one or two hundred fellow soldiers you will be alert, but able to hold fire. Now picture the same situation except it’s you and one or two buddies.

Remember what happened at Kent State?

How long will it go on?  Iraq is not the war. Afghanistan is not the war. They are only the current and most active locations.  In WW2 there was the European Theater of Operations, the Pacific Theater and the China, Burma, India Theater.

This will be for as long as radical Islamic extremists are still perceived to be a threat. Or to put reverse it for as long as they continue to perceive us to be a threat to their religious beliefs.

What,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
We’ve reached an impasse.
You feel more troops are needed to protect US troops and Iraqis.
I feel staying the course, or sending additional troops, will be pouring gasoline on a raging fire, i.e., increasing terrorism. The troops should be phased out and redeployed at borders only. Rescue teams need to help the Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure.
We agree to disagree.
I enjoyed our discussion. Hope others will join in.
Lee Lears

Lee,  I will join in to say “well said””.

I agree. More American troops would be like putting out fire with gasoline.

Lee and David,

Yes, it has been interesting. I guess we have an advantage in not being concerned with media interpreting our comments for public consumption (or ratings).

Last night I saw Rumsfeld on Larry King’s show saying all the generals (except perhaps one) agreed the troop strength was what Gen. Franks said he needed. I suggest he read, “Cobra ll”, by Gordon and (General)Trainor for an extended list including Colin Powell who very strongly disagreed. It also points out how little prepartion for the post combat phase there was. He is playing word games just like Clinton’s, “It depends on what is, IS.”

IMO hundreds, even thousands of lives have been and will be lost due to Rumsfeld’s arrogance and Bush’s “loyalty” to him.

At any rate no one with the power to act cares what we think.
——————————-
I am currently reading “The West’s Last Chance,” by Tony Blankley, which gives substance to my fears for our future generations.

If religion is indeed the opium of the people, too many are getting a synchronous high.

There is a report on Opinion Journal from an Iraqi woman who has worked in their government which is somewhat optimstic.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110008440
She stated one of the things I have felt for a long time — we should have taken Saddam in 1991 and also how the U.S. failure to establish order (IMO due to too few troops) showed almost immediately. Her opinion of Paul Bremer reinforces the “Cobra ll”(by Gordon and Trainor) evaluation of his heavy handed running of “nation building.”
I know Bush CAN"T read and I guess Rumsfelt just won’t.
Some samples of the article:
———————————& ————-
“That was the moment for regime change (in Gulf War 1991). Saddam was so weak. The international community was united. The Iraqi people were not so damaged.” 
———————————& —————
But the looting that followed did more than just property damage: “It showed the Americans were not in control,” she says. The perception was both lasting and fatal.
———————————& —————
[she sees] Paul Bremer as an outstanding details man who “knew everything about water, electricity and oil.” But he was remarkably ignorant about Iraq, had zero communications skills, and was peremptory in his personal dealings. Still worse was the staff of the Coalition Provisional Authority. “The CPA did not invest in empowering Iraqi politicians, in training them,” she says. “They took over everything. Culturally, that was unacceptable to Iraqis.”
———————————& —————
Another good read:  “The West’s Last Chance,” by Tony Blankley.  He is disturbed by how few people are taking the Islamic extremist threat seriously in the U.S.  He points out how even European liberals have become increasingly concerned and are demanding policy changes. e for 90 minutes after posting

It seems I am forgetting history.

How many MILLIONS died when we pulled out of Vietnam?

I pray for the thousands of families that have lost loved ones.  Lets not make it millions again.

When the toll is taken on the number of innocents killed in our quest for Iraqi democracy, it will make Darfur look like a college hazing.  The fact that the “toll” is still not being aggregated and published anywhere, is all the evidence of this that you should need.  We have descended to the point where we know where Al Queda is and yet we prefer to assasinate elderly and infants and Americans are only concerned with gasoline prices.  I doubt Darfur is that dark.

Got it! Great idea!

Let’s democratize Mexico. It would solve our border problem and the illegal aliens’ problems—make them elligible for minimum wage pay, Social Security, drivers’ llicenses — all in one package.

We’d only need enough troops for a Fox hunt.

Gee What,

Are you using “Fox” as a poly-entendre?

Hatch,

“Are you using “Fox” as a poly-entendre?”

Yes, as in “Saddam” hunt — Tally-ho.  :-)

From what I understand of Mexico (only from reading — never been there) he is among the elite class.  It is not a truly poor country, just poorly governed for many generations. Rather than improve things for his people he wants to shove them off on us.

I would welcome an opinion from someone with first hand experience.

Well What,

Maybe you need to get on a plane and visit the people we stole the west from right away.  I would not say these folks are poor either and I would bet that no matter what they do at the southern border, their DNA will get to all americans and soon you will all have daughters sporting a latin bun.

Hatch,

Oh, no, not another guilt ridden anti-anything American flake.

Every place used to “belong” to someone before. The trick is to keep it once you get it. When people get too accustomed to the easy llife it is close to moving day.

So if their DNA is worthwhile why don’t they push for change in Mexico. They have oil, which of course all the bad-mouth America crowd “knows” America is hopelessly addicted to.

You already have us responsible for any and all innocents being killed in Iraq now you want to go back a couple hundred years to argue ownership.

I guess this topic has run its course.

Hasta la vista and batten down the hatches.

Quit beating on us nihilists What.  Our day is just about here.  You know DNA’s biggest mystery is its motivation, or have you squandered yours?

The U. S. should have a better reputation than what the world sees today. We need to be seen in a positive vein, not a negative one as is overwhelmingly obvious heute. Can intelligent people gain control of our government again?

We should absolutely pull out and the quicker, the better. One must understand that there has been an exchange of hostilities between one faction or another raging in that region of the world virtually unabated for over 5,000 years now…to say that the United States pulling out now would cause the Iraqi’s to spiral into a civil war is nonsense.

The Persian/Arab culture of warfare will not be disentangled by any outside coercian—-be it overt or otherwise. We are in a no-win situation…that region of the world actually needs the brutality of a Saddam Hussien to keep a lid on things. That probably strikes many of you as outrageous—-outrageous though it may be, it is, unfortunately, the reality that no one seems to want to accept.

We need to bring our brave men & women home now…today—they’ve been there far too long already. They are starting to unravel—-to keep them there any longer is the absolute pinnacle of irresponsibility. We are doing them a grave disservice by causing them to stay even a week longer.