Victory in Iraq

[Morgan81]

Ok,
I just read this. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html)
So I guess I must be the dumbass who can't figure out how easy the plan is to get our troops out of Iraq. Maybe someone else can show me the error in my ways.
By the way, how many times does he mention how easy and clear our goals are in there? IS THAT WHY THERE IS A 30 PAGE, 13,000 WORD DOCUMENT ABOUT IT???????

As a republican, and slightly conservative, but mostly middle-of-the-road guy, I am so sick of trying to defend my country, to friends, and more importantly TO MYSELF. What I mean by that is I feel completly lied to, used and disgusted in this country and I have to remind myself what it is that I like about it sometimes because of dreak like this. It's not the fact that we went into Iraq, lets face it Saddam was an absolute barbarian. But we went in WITHOUT A F**KING PLAN.
Our Military shows how effective it is, how brave men and women can be, and then gets stuck in an aweful situation because our leadership is either incompetent or living in a dreamworld but in either case, unfit to command the kind of power our Military provides.

I say our leadership because I'm not drawing party lines on this one. Bush is commander so yes, he bares the majority of responsibility, but the Democratic party is useless. If that were not the case, we would have a Democratic administration. You can't try to elect a person strictly on the platform of, it isn't the guy in the White House and he sucks so get him out. I seriously doubt Kerry could of done better with this situation.

I'm just ranting here, since I'm just so damn sick of seeing heroes come home in coffins.

[meatwad]

Where's H. Ross Perot when you need him. :D

[HereComes30]

So I guess I must be the dumbass who can't figure out how easy the plan is to get our troops out of Iraq. Maybe someone else can show me the error in my ways.

The plan to get troops out of Iraq is easy...the thing is that doesn't complete the mission. All it does is encourage the terrorists that are there ("look...America is a bunch of pussies and couldn't beat us...we win!") and destablizes the entire middle east. At a time when democracy is beginning to spread in the middle east that is a major mistake IMO. Look at the other countries that are lining up with us now and are having elections and are coming clean about weapons programs etc. I agree that we shouldn't have troops there forever but pulling out, tucking tale and coming home is not the way to go either. And we will probably always have some troop presence there. Look at how long we have had troops in South Korea, Germany, France, and other places in the world. Why in the world do we still have bases and troops in Germany and France?

Did you read any of Joe Leiberman's comments after coming back from his 4th trip to Iraq? What about other senators that have been there numerous times. Isn't it interesting that the senators that are complaining, saying we don't have a plan, and that we need to leave Iraq have either never been there or have maybe gone only one time. Others that have been there numerous times have a totally different story and have reported that we are on track, things are going incredibly well, we are about to turn the corner, and that the news reports are predominately wrong on their portrayal of the war.

Interesting survey recently from the Pew organization as well that showed that 70% or so of liberals, reporters, and other supporters of the democrats thought things were not going well and that we should leave Iraq. 60% of Americans, over 70% of the troops, and 2/3 of the Iraq people polled all thought things were going awesome and that we should stay and finish the job. How can there be such a disparity? Why do certain groups of people not want to acknowledge and support the idea of succeeding in Iraq? Why is there little to now mention about all of the success in Iraq such as the increase in business ownership there, cell phones, satellite tv, utilities, women voting and running for office, women going to school, more school for kids, over 70% of the country being secure, etc etc.

[Deadend]

60% of Americans, over 70% of the troops, and 2/3 of the Iraq people polled all thought things were going awesome and that we should stay and finish the job.

Careful with your words. "Going awesome" is not a survey question I would expect, so I did a little digging. First of all it wasn't 60%, it was 56%, and it wasn't "going awesome" it was "will be successful at estabilishing a stable democracy". Even with the numbers aside, that's a chasm of differance in meaning, and definately readily qualifies as putting words in people's mouths.


This article refers to the poll I beilieve you're talking about. With your "democratic", not being democratic per se, but "tilting democratic" and being sampled for the purpose of a sample of "influencials" including journalists, acedemics, and media types.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1118-03.htm

[Morgan81]

I agree that we shouldn't have troops there forever but pulling out, tucking tale and coming home is not the way to go either. And we will probably always have some troop presence there. Look at how long we have had troops in South Korea, Germany, France, and other places in the world. Why in the world do we still have bases and troops in Germany and France?I'm not saying just bail. No one is saying that because everyone knows what that will mean.
What I was referring to in my original post was that fact that I feel lied to and I feel betrayed that the leaders of this country elected to use force (remember, congress authorized it, i.e. BOTH parties) without truely understanding what was about to happen and to have a plan to deal with adverse reactions.

[HereComes30]

No one is saying that because everyone knows what that will mean.

While I am glad that you are not recommending this it is not accurate to say that there are not others saying it. I have heard numerous democrats say they want out and they want out now. And now I think can be extended in definition meaning in the next 3-6 months which logistically might be how long it would take even if we decided to leave immediately versus a slow methodical strategy over the next several years.

Or is there a plan and it is just not being communicated effectively to us? Again referring to Leiberman after returning from his trip this last week or so to Iraq said there is indeed a plan and the plan is being executed and working well right now in Iraq. Of course no plan can be perfect and no plan can take into account future events that take place and require a new plan. If you use the same plan that you had going into the war for the duration of the war then you are never going to win because conditions change. Was there really any way of knowing that terrorists from all over the globe would be so drawn to Iraq as a gathering point and point of concentrating their resources and efforts?

I am curious...how do you feel lied to? Is it because of WMD (which were found in Iraq by the way and proof that many more were destroyed or moved prior to our arrival)? Is it because of an idea of going into Iraq, quick invasion, get rid of Sadam and then coming right home? Is it because of a lack of a detailed plan laid out to the entire american public? Just trying to understand where you are coming from.

[Deadend]

I am curious...how do you feel lied to? Is it because of WMD (which were found in Iraq by the way and proof that many more were destroyed or moved prior to our arrival)?

With all the hoopla around WMD's, that's the sort of assertation I would expect to be referanced with more than bracketed conjecture.

[Umbra]

I have a feeling that once we leave Iraq, whether it be now or five years from now, the terrorists will still take over. There is just too much chaos. I could be wrong, though. Time will tell.

[HereComes30]

With all the hoopla around WMD's, that's the sort of assertation I would expect to be referanced with more than bracketed conjecture.

Hardly conjecture....fact that if you took a little time to look up you could find for yourself. Here is one example. Of course you will not hear about any of this on CNN or ABC or NBC because it would make Bush look good and make it look like Sadam was more of a threat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

And another article...

In a secret operation on June 23, 2004, U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium—the kind used to make fuel for atomic bombs—in a nuclear facility in Iraq, according to BBC News. The BBC has been consistently critical of Bush and the Iraq war. U.S. Department of Energy experts also removed 1,000 radioactive materials in “powdered form, which is easily dispersed,” said Bryan Wilkes, an Energy Department spokesman. The material would have been ideal for a radioactive dirty bomb. Then energy secretary Spencer Abraham hailed the operation as “a major achievement.” Polish general Marek Dukaczewski, Poland’s military intelligence chief, revealed that troops in the Polish-patrolled sector of Iraq had received tips from Iraqis that chemical weapons were sold to terrorists on the black market. The weapons had been buried to avoid detection, the general told the BBC. Polish military officials bought seventeen chemical-weapons warheads from Iraqis for $5,000 each to keep them from Iraq’s so-called insurgents. “An attack with such weapons would be hard to imagine,” the general said. “All of our activity was accelerated at appropriating these warheads.” Tests confirmed that some of the warheads contained cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin. These chemical weapons were supposed to have been completely destroyed during the 1991–1998 UN inspector regime. Clearly, some WMD survived.

U.S. soldiers stormed into a warehouse in Mosul, Iraq, on August 8, 2005, and were surprised to find 1,500 gallons of chemical agents. It was the largest chemical weapons lab found in Iraq. The intelligence community remains divided over the origin of those chemical weapons (either from inside Iraq or outside) and whether they were made during Saddam’s regime or after.

When a roadside bomb exploded near a U.S. convoy on May 17, 2004, it was found to contain the nerve agent sarin. Army Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told reporters that an “improvised explosive” was rigged to a 155 mm artillery shell that contained sarin. The shell was a “binary chemical projectile,” in which the two ingredients that produce sarin are separated by a propeller blade that spins while the shell is in flight, mixing the deadly gas to full potency. Since the chemical weapons shell was used as a bomb, and not fired from the barrel of an artillery piece, the internal rotor did not spin and the deadly agent was not widely dispersed. As a result, Kimmitt explained, only traces of sarin were produced and released. The soldiers were briefly hospitalized and decontaminated. Again, all such chemical weapons warheads were supposed to be destroyed in 1991—yet Saddam’s WMD still threaten the lives of American troops to this day.

The Iraq Survey Group, led by David Kay and charged with finding WMD after the war, discovered a projectile loaded with mustard gas attached to a roadside bomb in May 2004. Fortunately, the mustard gas was “stored improperly” and was “ineffective.” The mustard-gas shell is believed to be part of the eighty tons of such gas still unaccounted for.

[Deadend]

Don't be absurd. WMD's are NOT defined as anything other than conventional explosives. The WMD justification was due to a United Nations order for Iraqi disarrmerment, so it's their definition of WMD that counts, not yours.

Don't sneer at me for "not finding it myself" and then linking an article which itself does not even contain the word "WMD" in it! Even your article isn't trying to persuade the audiance that this is proof of WMD's.

Ingrediants for nerve gas, and enriched uranium? That's your "proof"? That's like finding gasoline and saying it proves cars.

FYI: Many Iraqi women died in childbirth during the 90's because midwifery kits were not allowed under the trade sanctions because scissors could be melted down to make bullets. That's the "threat" we're talking about.

[and1grad]

Honestly, I'm over the whole WMD debacle. I think the part that bothers me is that there was no plan. Also, its a little simplistic for our officials to have thought this would be a "wham, bam, thank you ma'am" mission. I would be SHOCKED if we didnt have to have military presence in these countries for decades.

[Morgan81]

I am curious...how do you feel lied to? Is it because of WMD (which were found in Iraq by the way and proof that many more were destroyed or moved prior to our arrival)? Is it because of an idea of going into Iraq, quick invasion, get rid of Sadam and then coming right home? Is it because of a lack of a detailed plan laid out to the entire american public? Just trying to understand where you are coming from.I put my trust in the leaders of this country that they would not get this nation into a war that would take thousands of lives, for a poorly defined goal, which has changed.
In the beginning it was WMDs yes, which has conveniently been forgotten by this administration and it's all about giving freedom to the Iraqi people, who I felt bad for, but it is clear that they were so used to being ruled by a tyrant who they were not ready to overthrow (by in large, I am aware there were some smaller groups who wanted to overthrow Saddam, but the bulk of the public did not) that they don't quite understand or cherish freedom, and in my opinion at least, aren't ready to defend it to the point where a new dictator won't seize power the day we leave. But that's not my main beef here, I understand that leaving Saddam in power was asking for trouble.
I feel lied to for the lack of the plan. The fact that Bush was so eager to get on that carrier and shout "Mission Accomplished" to every Democrat or protestor with ears that he seemingly forgot that the war was not over, people as well as infrastructure needed care and that not every Iraqi was happy to have the American Military over for dinner pissed me of because I knew that would happen pre-war, so why the hell couldn't they?

And honestly, Bush comes across as somebody pretending to be smarter than the room whenever he makes a speech in order to "clarify" policy and seems to talk down to anyone who might disagree with him and that the answer is so simple. It is frustrating to have our leader blow off criticism that, in my opinion, should be addressed.

[heatherf]

So I guess I must be the dumbass who can't figure out how easy the plan is to get our troops out of Iraq.

I'm with And1, we are going to be there for a long....long....time.

We can't just invade a country, try to "liberate" it, completely fuck up the infrastructure, throw up our hands cause it ain't working, and then just leave. We'd look and we'd be total asshats for that. So we are STUCK there. For years and years we are stuck there.

Exit plan? Puh-lease. There is no exit plan. Things seem to be worse in Iraq now than they were before we got there.

In the meantime, I get to frequently check the list of dead soldiers on cnn.com, hoping I don't see my little brother's name.

[Lipstick]

Morgan - the reason the speech and plan made no sense is because it wasn't written by anyone with military experience. It was written by a political scientist who wanted to show the administration how to change public opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/politics/04strategy.html