Iraq is already in civil war. The situation is deteriorating. The troops don't want to be there. The majority of Iraqies want the coalition out.
We are training their security forces police and army but these organisations are being infiltrated by people who are against the occupation. This is very difficult and dangerousfor our troops.
The coalition has no stated goals, no direction as is open to attack verbally and physically.
It is ironic than the major beneficery of the war is Iran. Iranians are using the unsettled situation to make in roads into the political process in Iraq and can also get away with nuclear proliferation becasue they know the west is already over stretched.
Whatever you thought of the war in the first place, it is time to think clearly for the morale of the troops, and the stability of Iraq lets bring our boys home before Christmas.
Originally posted by invigorateThere's no such thing as an "ideal" number of casualties. In war there are casualties. And there will be a lot more if coaltion troops pull out and the civil war in Iraq destabilizes the region.
What is your ideal number of caualties then?
I look at it this way. You invade the country. You screw up the reasons for invading the country, and you screw up in not having any contingency plans after you successfully invade the country. Now what you have to do is clean up the mess you made, no matter how painful the consequences are. Because if you leave too soon, other nations will question your competence when you decide to invade the next country, or try to do anything else (oh, wait, that's already happening with New Orleans. whoops...) And that civil war created because you left would be more deaths created than there are now.
Plus Iran might take advantage and invade. Plus Kurdistan may break away, declaring independence, causing Turkey to invade (they have a sizeable and restless Kurd minority). These last two points are speculation, but not out of the realm of possibility
Of course, it would be useful if the person who started the invasion not be the one who is cleaning it up (due to incompetence). Unfortunately the American public didn't kick the guy out last year, so they (and the rest of the world) are now paying for the consequences of that decision.
Originally posted by invigorateThere are no draftees in Iraq as far as I know. Give the military guys a break. Wars are the time to make rank and reputations. Look at what JFK's military service accomplished for him, and I'm sure the same was/is true for many Englishmen whose names I don't know.
Iraq is already in civil war. The situation is deteriorating. The troops don't want to be there. The majority of Iraqies want the coalition out.
We are training their security forces police and army but these organisations are being infiltrated by people who are against the occupation. This is very difficult and dangerousfor our troops.
The coaliti ...[text shortened]... r the morale of the troops, and the stability of Iraq lets bring our boys home before Christmas.
Originally posted by invigorateYou may be right but I'm not sure what the definition of winning is in a situation like Iraq. Since WWII the USA and Britian have obviously won many battles, but have not won any wars that I can think of offhand. What's your definition of winning and/or losing in Iraq? I ask in all seriousness because I personally have no definition.
Thats exactly what I'm proposing.
BTW I think the military is doing a their best in Iraq - my post was supportive of their efforts. But I fear they are fighting a losing battle.
Originally posted by DelmerWinning = For Bush would be: a secure democracy with Iraq operating as a whole and not fragmenting along religious or teritorial lines. I think some level of managed infrastructure in power, sanitation, transport, and communications (although not necessarily to pre-war levels) is also required.
You may be right but I'm not sure what the definition of winning is in a situation like Iraq. Since WWII the USA and Britian have obviously won many battles, but have not won any wars that I can think of offhand. What's your definition of winning and/or losing in Iraq? I ask in all seriousness because I personally have no definition.
Ideally the new government would welcome an American foothold in the country in the form of a military base.
The biggest question is that needs to be answered is would a troop withdrawl make Iraq more secure for its citizens or less secure. At the moment it would appear a lot of anger is being aimed at the coalition troops. If the troops went would the anger subside and progress be made on the other objectives?
It is my assertion that a controlled timetable for withdrawl would help the objectives be met.
Originally posted by invigorateI just can't see the anger in Iraq subsiding between the Kurds, Sunnis (sp?) and Shiites (sp?). Those hatreds seems too old and too well esablished. Like some other leftovers from Colonialism, Iraq seems like an entiely artificial country. Without a strong outside presence I think Iraq will degenerate into a really bloody civil war. And then Iran will attack. However, the outside presence wouldn't have to be foreign military. It could come from very strong Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite leaders outside Iraq creating a pact and then returning to the country with substantial followers. Logically Iraq should probably be three small countries.
Winning = For Bush would be: a secure democracy with Iraq operating as a whole and not fragmenting along religious or teritorial lines. I think some level of managed infrastructure in power, sanitation, transport, and communications (although not necessarily to pre-war levels) is also required.
Ideally the new government would welcome an American footh ...[text shortened]...
It is my assertion that a controlled timetable for withdrawl would help the objectives be met.
Originally posted by DelmerDelmer, no one wants to live in a combat zone. Not the military men, not Bush, and not the innocent Iraqis either. I guarantee you no sane person goes to war to make rank and reputation.
There are no draftees in Iraq as far as I know. Give the military guys a break. Wars are the time to make rank and reputations. Look at what JFK's military service accomplished for him, and I'm sure the same was/is true for many Englishmen whose names I don't know.
Originally posted by invigorateIt would have to eventually subside. It will be a tough lesson for Iraqis to learn, but they are going to have to get along with each other. I just wish the Syrians, Iranians, Pakistan(ians?) what stop throwing gasoline on an already hot fire.
Winning = For Bush would be: a secure democracy with Iraq operating as a whole and not fragmenting along religious or teritorial lines. I think some level of managed infrastructure in power, sanitation, transport, and communications (although not necessarily to pre-war levels) is also required.
Ideally the new government would welcome an American footh ...[text shortened]...
It is my assertion that a controlled timetable for withdrawl would help the objectives be met.
It seems that the Iraqi people's views in many opinions are in direct conflict with their (provisional) government. I wonder, how can the government of Iraq, elected by its people, have views so divergent than its populace? If Iraq were to have a deomocratic election without the U.S. (or any) influence, like a democracy is supposed to be, there would be an Islamic state run by the Shia. The U.S. doesn't want this, and that is precisely why we are keeping our troops in Iraq. They are there to prevent democracy, because if the Iraqi people were to have a democracy, they would most certainly elect Iran-like political figures. Exactly what the U.S. doesn't want.
the reason being: most people who voted probally didn't know "who" they were voting for. Take afghanistan for instance...there were more than 3000 nominees for parliament, and most of the voters did not know who they would vote for until they got to the polls and asked people who they should vote for...
***edit
I think everyone is trying to rush this. Why put a deadline on a document as important as the Iraqi constitution? I mean, they shouldn't be pressed for time, trying to decide the future of an entire country.