Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Austin Bay :: Townhall.com Columnist
Iraqi Withdrawal: Seven Scenarios
by Austin Bay
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


What happens if the United States and coalition forces withdraw rapidly from Iraq? The U.S. and the Iraqi governments have their own scenarios. Iran, al-Qaida, Syria and Turkey have also analyzed potential outcomes.

Business and government make plans. Every plan anticipates a future outcome. Since the future can't be predicted, the best plans acknowledge uncertainty. Acknowledging uncertainty means accepting risk -- the risk of being wrong. The art of leadership is being "less wrong."

Here are seven "scenarios" sketching "potential outcomes" of a quick withdrawal from Iraq. These scenarios are not mutually exclusive. You will find bits and pieces in all seven:

1) Three New Countries: Kurdistan in the north becomes an independent country -- and immediately starts to wrestle with Turkey over the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which is waging a secessionist struggle in southeastern Turkey. Kurdistan has oil. Southern Iraq -- a predominantly Shia area -- becomes a Shia state, also with oil. Parts of Anbar province become a Sunni state (Iraqi Sunnistan) -- which has few oil fields.

But what becomes of Baghdad? Does it divide like a desert Berlin into Shia and Sunni sectors? Baghdad remains a source of continuing conflict.

2) Regional Shia-Sunni War: Iran sees an opportunity to recover not only the Shaat al Arab region -- the delta of the Tigris and Euphrates -- but a chance to extend its border into the economically productive areas of southern Iraq. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait immediately react to Iran's drive into southern Iraq. Iraq has served as a "buffer" between Sunni Arabs and Shia Iranians, and the buffer is dissolving. Jordan and Egypt prepare for action. The War Over Mesopotamia could last for weeks, or it could grind on for years.

3) Turkey Expands: Turkey takes control of northern Iraq to the city of Kirkuk. The Ottoman Empire once controlled Mesopotamia. Turkey has a lingering claim to areas of northern Iraq. For almost two decades, Turkey has fought with the Kurdistan Workers Party -- a Kurdish secessionist group in Turkey that has bases in northern Iraq. Turkey could conclude the way to end the war with the PKK would be to absorb Iraqi Kurdistan.

Turkey would pay a huge political price, however. It would lose all chance of joining the European Union. As ties with the West deteriorate, Turkey might become less secular and more Islamic in both identity and in political orientation.

4) Shia Dictatorship: Shia Arabs win the chaotic battle of neighborhoods, forcing Sunni Arabs to flee. Call it "de facto" ethnic cleansing, as the Sunnis flee to Sunni states, or move to the United States. Al-Qaida, however, retains a presence. A hard-line Shia regime takes power in Baghdad with the mission of eradicating al-Qaida. The Kurds retain a high degree of autonomy with just enough connection to Baghdad to keep the Turks away.

5) "Gang Up":  A calculated version of Scenario 4 -- Rwanda in the desert. Shia Arabs and Kurds launch a coordinated campaign to eliminate Iraq's Sunni Arab community. The threat of Iranian intervention prevents Sunni Arab nations from protecting Iraqi Sunnis.

6)  Chaos: Iraq shatters into ethnic enclaves, with a few "new Mesopotamian city states" managing to control oil fields. Iran and Turkey exert "regional influence" over eastern and northern Iraq, respectively, but concerned about confrontation between themselves or provoking sanctions from Europe and the United States, neither sends its military forces in large numbers beyond current borders.

Terror attacks and intermittent fighting afflict neighborhoods throughout Iraq. Local warlords rule by fear and make money by either smuggling oil, drugs or arms. This tribal hell is a perfect disaster -- the kind of disaster that allows al-Qaida to build training facilities and base camps for operations throughout the Middle East and Europe.

7)  The Iraqi Center Holds: The democratic government proves to be resilient. The assumption behind this scenario is that Iraq's government is just responsive enough and its security forces are just strong enough to withstand attacks by extremists and give Iran pause. After several months of brutal warfare, the Iraqi Army destroys insurgent groups. Out of seven "rapid withdrawal" scenarios only one -- number seven -- clearly benefits the majority of Iraqis.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Austin Bay Austin Bay is author of three novels. His third novel, The Wrong Side of Brightness, was published by Putnam/Jove in June 2003. He has also co-authored four non-fiction books, to include A Quick and Dirty Guide to War: Third Edition (with James Dunnigan, Morrow, 1996).
 
Be the first to read Austin Bay's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
# 7 is not a lucky number for Dems, MSM,
and about a dozen blogging nutroots we'll be hearing from before the clock strikes 12.

Smart thinking
This guy expertly summed things up and hit the nail right on the head.

The defeatocrats could care less about the Iraqi people when political expediency says "dump em".

So much for the "party of compassion".

HalO -- I am here, where are you?
I am a retired Army major that volunteered for recall. Currently serving with Special Forces in Iraq.

HalO, I know you must have years of military experience. That's why selecting defense as your prime strategy puzzles me! What chapter was that in Sun Tzu's Art of War?

If you don't really understand what this is about, the defense of our country and Western Civilization, you should learn. Then you might join those of us who know and fight like we are.

Scenario 2
I don't see how scenario 2 would be disadvantageous to the US. Better for our enemies to start killing each other than targeting us.

The price of oil would skyrocket. But there is no constitutional right to cheap oil. And it would make the western US shale oil economical to extract.

CrossWise -- Thank you for your service.
Liberals delight in calling anyone who supports the war in Iraq a "Chicken Hawk" That's funny since it would appear they are the ones a Chicken Hawk would eat! I'm a retired Marine but way too old to volunteer for active duty. Besides I'm missing a few parts. Anyway Major, introduce as many of these Islamo-Fascists to Allah as you can and keep your tail-bone down.

CrossWise
Thank you for your service. There are a lot of American people who think you and your fellows are the best. And we are deeply ashamed of the politics that seem to undermine what you are trying to do. The media is wrong, the polls are wrong. It's all in the way the question is asked. "would you like out military men and women to come home from Iraq?" Thats sorta like "did you stop beating your wife?"

error
that should be "OUR" not out. typing in the dark is iffy.

World War left out
This was a very good column that should be required reading for anyone commenting on this mess in Iraq.
There were a few scenarios that were left out. In instance No.2 Saudi Arabia and Iran fight over Iraq. This has the potential to draw others into the fray. Naturally we would support Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (if they entered). I don't know how strong our support would be after running from Iraq and showing the Muslim world that the US is a paper tiger. Our aid would no doubt be military equipment and possibly air support and intel. It is likely that China would arm Iran with every weapon they could sell. It is doubtful that Russia would not do the same.
Does anyone doubt that Iran would not mine or threaten to mine the Persian Gulf? This could easily lead to a shooting war between the US and Iran. Would this draw China deaper into the conflict? With the "Great Satan" on the Sunni side our allies would have an easier time in the war but a harder time with their clergy and populace. Should Saudi Arabia's population or military overthrow their monarchy oil markets and economies around the world could collapse.
Naturally Iran would continue to work on Nukes.
After running from Iraq and showing weakness we would weaken our ally in Pakistan, Musharaff. Hopefully this unpopular ruler could hold on but if not then where would Pakistan's nukes go?
This region is a tinderbox that could draw other powers in very easily. As everyone relies on the oil flowing everyone has an interest.
One final thought. Both China and Saudi Arabia hold trillions in US debt and in our stock market. An overthrown Saudi Arabia or an angry China could hurt our (and their own) economy without firing a shot. It's not logical but then again what is logical about communism or Islam?

It should be noted that
none of the 7 scenarios postulated would ever have been on the table if Sadaam were still in power. Now that the US and GWB have the region completely FU they are wringing their hands and saying "look at all the bad things that may happen if we leave". Get out and let the people who live there sort out their own problems.

Austin
"What happens if the United States and coalition forces withdraw rapidly from Iraq? The U.S. and the Iraqi governments have their own scenarios. Iran, al-Qaida, Syria and Turkey have also analyzed potential outcomes."

Who is proposing a "rapid" withdrawal from Iraq?

Cause and Effect
omni is on to it, there is no Sadaam around to hold down the killings and rule Iraq after we leave. We will remain there and our soldiers will continue to get picked off. We have no reason to be there now except for ____________ . (Fill in the blank but no cigar for using the word "oil.") After a year or so we will withdraw - after our 2008 elections. Then the real war begins. The civil war will take on huge proportions with the three Iraqi factions chopping up each other. Iran will be the primary participant in stoking the fire so that it gets more territory. Kuwait will follow unless it starts to toe the line of the fanatics. Can you say "oil embargo"? In the end, the U.S. will be faced with less oil, not more (whoops, a small error by the CFR, Trilaterals, Rockefellers, and Bilderbergs).

I support # 1...
as the best. We should push this option and set up the states of Iraq. #1 forgot the Christians but the Christians always take it in the shorts.

Turkey would just have to accept Kurdistan since Turkey is a result of the breaking up of the Ottoman empire. It seems reasonable that the Kurds should have been given a homeland at that time. Was it an over sight by the Brits or intentional?

What becomes of Baghdad? It becomes the weak federal government like our founding fathers put in place some 200 years ago.

Our troops could pull back and let this new vision start to play out. The Kurds are ready for this right now. The rub comes in when oil revenue sharing comes in. The central government could be given this job.

If option #1 isn't possible then option #2 sounds like the one since this puts the countries of Arabia in tension with each other. Maybe even SunTzu would see the advantage of having your enemies duke it out. And yes Saudi Arabia is more an enemy of ours than a friend.

Fiction and Folly
"none of the 7 scenarios postulated would ever have been on the table if Sadaam were still in power ..."

Now, THAT'S bigger fiction than any Harry Potter book/movie!

I just love when anti Iraq War folks myopically fall back on Saddam(n) as if he were some stabilizing Messiah over there. One of the biggest and worst WMDs we found was millions and millions and millions of American money the bass-turd had stockpiled (and that's NOT counting the millions he had shoved into semi trucks and rolled out of Iraq while we played slap and tickle with the UN). Does anyone really believe SH would NOT have jumped into the whole jihadi caliphate movement after 9-11? Hell, he was already sending tens of thousands into Palestine and Israel to fund homicide bombers and terrorism there. What's several million to help train and arm A.Q. if it means sticking it to the USA?

And don't get me started on the whole Oil For Food sham Saddam(n) had going with [certain] countries, and individuals, in the UN.

I'm certain of one thing ... If we had just left Hitler alone Europe and Great Britian would look a hell of a lot different today. He was on the verge of satbilizing Europe before we stuck our big nose in there ... How many different scenarios can we all think of for that?

#8
The remnants of the Taliban will abandon the Tora Bora region, move to Iraq where they'll set up shop with Hamas. Hesballah, and every Islamofascist terrorist group in existence. It will appear to be a political state, but it will carry out a terrorist agenda. The Federation of the Overtightened Turban will undoubtedly do everything within its ability to carry out attacks against the US that will be intended to make 9/11 look like a school picnic.

drillanwr
"I'm certain of one thing ... If we had just left Hitler alone Europe and Great Britian would look a hell of a lot different today. He was on the verge of satbilizing Europe before we stuck our big nose in there ... How many different scenarios can we all think of for that?"

You dare compare Saddam to Hitler? Are you crazy? The guy sat in a decaying country writing romance novels. His son's were crazy and he preyed on his people. But Hitlar? Get a grip. I find it so fasinating that you red staters live in total fear while we blue staters with most of the high value targets get on with life and want to go after those who attacked us on 9/11. Saddam was a bad nasty fellow but Hitler hardly

nutnfinr
No one is talking running.

"What to do now is the issue."

Support Congress' demand for accountability and reconstitute the forces

redstatesdrink2muchkoolaid
"it's about understanding the reality of the World and how actions result in consequences."

Amen!

# 60
SEND REID & BUDDIES TO RUN THE IRAQ GOV, THEN THEY WILL KISS EACH OTHER AS******

Rob
"Ok Red States, NOW you say we shouldn't have gone.You knew this back then eh??"

Actually I did from the minute that Chaney said that we know where the WMD's are and will not tell the inspectors. Took quite a bit of abuse for it also

"Why didn't you write to your boy Kerry who along with 28 other Senates Democrats voted for the war?? Hindsight is so easy isn't it?? So tell us what we should do now big boy."

Actually I did. What now? A measured slow repositioning of forces and rebuilding and reconstituting our forces while pressuring Al Q heavy in Afghanuistan and keeping pressure on elsewhere

"Hal, I'll trust our military leaders to tell us where to go in Iraq before Congress who changes their positions with the wind."

Numerous generals under Bush resigned to oppose Bush. One even made an ad saying Bush does not listen. Generals on active duty will only support the administration. How many times do you have to be told Bush does not listen?

ussmls
First let's send the chickenhawks starting with Bush who are abandoning our troops in the desert

worthwhile project
This is certainly a positive enterprise, since thinking about what will follow from ones actions is important. It would also be valuable to try to figure out which of the possibilities is most likely.

I made a similar list before the invasion of Oraq, and there was a large degree of overlap with the list above. After all, the fiasco that the Iraq invasion became was all rather predictable going in.

Some of the elements above do not seem particularly plausible. It is hard to see Turkey abandoning its relations in the West to begin what would be a very damaging occupation. There certainly could be fighting between the Turks and Kurds, but an occupation seems unlikely. Not everyone thinks it is a sign of valor to suffer pointlessly.

The gang up scenario is also unlikely since the Kurds are more likely to want to spend thier resources locking in thier territory rather than joining with the Shiites. The Sunni Arabs represent a buffer for them.

But the most likely result is missing from the list, namely a limited civil war as each side tests its power, and then a new Iraqi government based on the actual balance of power. That is far more likely than that the US establishded government would ever get the kind of respectablity needed to hold the country together.

But 1, 4, and 6 above are all possibilities.

Of course since my list was based on the results of getting in rather than getting out it also contained the possibility that we would get stuck in Iraq being bled of troops and resources indefinitely to avoid taking responsibility for the failure of the invasion. That still seesm to me to be one of the worst possible outcomes. And it is one that needs to be weighed in decideing whether to risk the other alternatives.

If we leave slowly, or never willingly, then what are the most likely outcomes? Staying makes sense only if these latter scenarios are better.

Bush IS Hitler
"You dare compare Saddam to Hitler? Are you crazy? The guy sat in a decaying country writing romance novels. His son's were crazy and he preyed on his people. But Hitlar? Get a grip. I find it so fasinating that you red staters live in total fear while we blue staters with most of the high value targets get on with life and want to go after those who attacked us on 9/11. Saddam was a bad nasty fellow but Hitler hardly"

SH and boys might have been sitting in a decaying country ... but not IN it ... Or did you miss the footage of the many posh palaces ... probably.

Oh, sorry ... That's right. You blue-nuts OWN the Hitler analogy ... *chanting*: "Bush is Hitler ... Bush IS Hitler ..."

Yeah, we "red-staters" feel for you poor blue-staters. You just keep insisting on "swimming across the river and carrying that scorpion on your back" ...

#6 is most realistic
Muslims west of Ayodhya have shown a knack for dissolving into anarchy!

#4, 0r #6, if you're placing bets
I think #4, or #6, is most likely. But I am not certain the Kurds can restrict themselves to mere autonomy. They want a separate nation. This may occur but only with some financial inducement with Turkey. Kurdistan is rich in resources, so this is a real possibility...bestowing Turkey with economic benefits in exchange for it not objecting to a Kurdish state. There already exists alot of trade between the Kurds and Turkey.

The Maliki government will last only as long as Bush supports it. It is inept, riddled with corruption, and has no legitimacy in the eyes of most Iraqis. However, the Shias will control most of Iraq. I think al-Sadr will become de facto leader, as if he is not already.

Ethnic cleansing has been occurring all along, precipitated by our invasion. It already exists in all of Iraq except Baghdad, and there the partition is between Sunnis in the west, and Shias in the east.

The fate of the Sunnis in Baghdad and elsewhere depends upon al-Sadr. Is he, or will he, be in a magnanimous frame of mind?

The great majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslims. Generally, sunnis are not as fundamentalist as shias---I am aware of exceptions, such as Al Qaida. But generally this observation holds.

Therefore, I think it unlikely Kurds would align themselves with Iraqi Shias.

But only the shadow knows.




redstates
Have you actually read Sun Tzu? I think not. I have a copy would you like to borrow it? Sun absolutely believed in "get the Enemy before they get you". Saddam had been threatening and skirting 17 UN resolutions before 9/11. We payed little to no attention to OBL do you really think it is smart to make the same mistake twice? Really?

jerabub
The Kurds will mostly get wiped out with the help of turkey since most of the oil is in that region.

Hal Donohue
You will perpetuate myth as long as possible because you don't want to possibly concede that your wrong. Reading romance novels? Saddam was hardly a harmless old man. Why don't you read some of the news stories and books about all of the women he raped?

1will
Exactly.

Hal
As to destroying our military, are you aware that Army reenlistment is the highest it has EVER been. How do you explain that when you claim most do not support the mission?

Rob
"And although the question was for Red States (wherever he went to), I never read about you criticizng your leftist congressional buddies. But again I don't care. I only care about the now and The Democrats and a few Republicans talking withdraw aids the enemy just more than anything else happening today"

I disagree completely. I put to you that Bush's strategy aids and has aided the enemy and that is why we have not been attacked to date. Bush was doing thier bidding without realising it

Lolo
A cheerful good morning!

"You will perpetuate myth as long as possible because you don't want to possibly concede that your wrong. Reading romance novels? Saddam was hardly a harmless old man. Why don't you read some of the news stories and books about all of the women he raped?"

He was not harmless at all he was all bad BUT he certainly was no Hitler

apoplectic
"As to destroying our military, are you aware that Army reenlistment is the highest it has EVER been. How do you explain that when you claim most do not support the mission?"

Two points: we are paying HUGE bonuses but second and most important we have a professional military, they want to serve. Do not mistake that with approval of Bush's failed Iraq policy.

When I say disarming our military I mean just that units with no where near the required training or equipment. Hollowed out was the term we used after Nam

Hal
"I disagree completely. I put to you that Bush's strategy aids and has aided the enemy and that is why we have not been attacked to date. Bush was doing thier bidding without realising it"

That is complete nonsense. The same argument could be made about Britain, Spain, and Australia, all of which have been attacked. In fact Spain has not been attacked since they pulled out of the mission.

Hal
"we are paying HUGE bonuses but second and most important we have a professional military, they want to serve. Do not mistake that with approval of Bush's failed Iraq policy."

Again, nonsense. Even with the "Huge" bonuses, they are making less money than they could once they leave the Army. It is true that we have a professional military but we have had a professional military at least since the mid 1980's. That doesn't explain the all time high reeinlistment rates. Nice try though.

exit realities
What is perhaps most striking about the military's simulations is that its post-drawdown scenarios focus on civil war and regional intervention and upheaval rather than the establishment of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq.

For Bush, however, that is the primary risk of withdrawal. "It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda," he said in a news conference last week. "It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan." If U.S. troops leave too soon, Bush said, they would probably "have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."

Withdrawal would also "confuse and frighten friends and allies in the region and embolden Syria and especially Iran, which would then exert its influence throughout the Middle East," the president said.

Bush is not alone in his description of the al-Qaeda threat should the United States leave Iraq too soon. "There's not a doubt in my mind that Osama bin Laden's one goal is to take over the Kingdom of the Two Mosques [Saudi Arabia] and reestablish the caliphate" that ended with the Ottoman Empire, said a former senior military official now at a Washington think tank. "It would be very easy for them to set up camps and run them in Anbar and Najaf" provinces in Iraq.

U.S. intelligence analysts, however, have a somewhat different view of al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq, noting that the local branch takes its inspiration but not its orders from bin Laden. Its enemies -- the overwhelming majority of whom are Iraqis -- reside in Baghdad and Shiite-majority areas of Iraq, not in Saudi Arabia or the United States. While intelligence officials have described the Sunni insurgent group calling itself al-Qaeda in Iraq as an "accelerant" for violence, they have cited domestic sectarian divisions as the main impediment to peace.

In a report released yesterday, Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies warned that al-Qaeda is "only one part" of a spectrum of Sunni extremist groups and is far from the largest or most active. Military officials have said in background briefings that al-Qaeda is responsible for about 15 percent of the attacks, Cordesman said, although the group is "highly effective" and probably does "the most damage in pushing Iraq towards civil war." But its activities "must be kept in careful perspective, and it does not dominate the Sunni insurgency," he said.

'Serious Consequences'



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Moderate lawmakers such as Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) have concluded that a unified Iraqi government is not on the near horizon and have called for redeployment, change of mission and a phased drawdown of U.S. forces. Far from protecting U.S. interests, Lugar said in a recent speech, the continuation of Bush's policy poses "extreme risks for U.S. national security."

Critics of complete withdrawal often charge that "those advocating [it] just don't understand the serious consequences of doing so," said Wayne White, a former deputy director of Near East division of the State Department's Intelligence and Research Bureau. "Unfortunately, most of us old Middle East hands understand all too well some of the consequences."

White is among many Middle East experts who think that the United States should leave Iraq sooner rather than later, but differ on when, how and what would happen next. Most agree that either an al-Qaeda or Iranian takeover would be unlikely, and say that Washington should step up its regional diplomacy, putting more pressure on regional actors such as Saudi Arabia to take responsibility for what is happening in their back yards.

Many regional experts within and outside the administration note that while there is a range of truly awful possibilities, it is impossible to predict what will happen in Iraq -- with or without U.S. troops.

"Say the Shiites drive the Sunnis into Anbar," one expert said of Anderson's war-game scenario. "Well, what does that really mean? How many tens of thousands of people are going to get killed before all the surviving Sunnis are in Anbar?" He questioned whether that result would prove acceptable to a pro-withdrawal U.S. public.

White, speaking at a recent symposium on Iraq, addressed the possibility of unpalatable withdrawal consequences by paraphrasing Winston Churchill's famous statement about democracy. "I posit that withdrawal from Iraq is the worst possible option, except for all the others."


Strategy
This column is a very simplitist overview of an economic, military and political problem.

The author's words denote his lack of expertise in world politics. That is, he hasn't a clue.

Typo
simplistic



ThighMaster
"And anyone else that supports pulling our troops out of Iraq and redeploying them in Afghanistan.

If we go back to Afghanistan to fight AQ, do you think they'll stay in Afghanistan and fight us or do you think they'll move to a defenseless Iraq to regroup?"

Only if we let them

Hate to say this but sadly must run maybe tomorrow folks. Until then be well

Hal Donohue
The Army failed to meet its enlistment goals for both May and June. It has had to increase the age for enlistment to 42 years of age, as well as provide substantial inducements and relax its prohibitions on accepting recruits with prior criminal histories...just to come close to, or meet, its entlistment goals.

This does not sound like it is an easy "sell".

When the national guard is ordered to return to Iraq for 4 and even 5 tours, that should tell you something.

Additionally, private "contractors" in Iraq number in the many tens of thousands, and in effect complement our military.

Without these contractors, the mission, such as it is, would be impossible, and El Jorge would either have to recommend reinstituting the draft, or abandon the "mission", whatever it is defined to be this week.

Religiouslib
When are you going to get that it is not about Bush? Simple question, why is Al Qaeda in Iraq and killing iraqi civilians by the thousands?

Religiouslib
There probably will be even more violence once we leave Iraq. Lack of planning, and no forethought, has gotten where we are today.

Once we leave, or reduce our presence, the majority Shias will rally around al-Sadr. Maliki has no legitimacy. He lasts only as long as we are there.

Once al-Sadr and his Shia militias control much of Iraq, things will really get interesting. I don't think he will tolerate any radical sunni Al Qaida presence in Iraq.

thighmaster
Our CIA supported the mujahideen fighting against Soviet occuptation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. We provided "Stinger" missiles which the mujahideen used to down Russian helicopters.

The only socalled "ally" we have in Iraq is the dysfunctional Maliki government, which would not last a day if we removed our support.

I don't advocate a "cut and run" strategy on Iraq. But it was Bush and his breathtakingly ignorant policies that have resulted in this fiasco.

The only answer is some political settlement involving discussions with ALL of Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran.

occupation. not occuptation
mistype.

thighmaster
Nations and groups do what is in their interest.

Given that our military invasion of Iraq has spawned the existence of al Qaida in Iraq when it did not exist prior to the invasion, and given the removal of the brutal dictator of Saddam has unleashed pent-up religious animosities and ancient grievances and blood-feuds, perhaps some solution other than military should be contemplated.

Unlike our president, I do believe we are in a fight to the death with Islam, or Islamism. Our president, like the new prime minister of Great Britain, maintains Islam to be a religion of peace.

I just think Iraq has become an incubator of terrorism, where jihadists learn to hone their skills, bomb-making and otherwise, to then attack what few moderate regimes exist in the mideast.

In other words, I think Iraq is increasing the power of Islamism, not containing it.

But that does not mean I want to cut and run from the blunder engineered by Bush.

We have incurred responsibilites. I think the only solution is to involve the major players in the region...Jordanians, Saudis, Egyptians, Turks, Syrians and Iranians.

apoplectic
are the shia also killing thousands of iraqis?

if so, why are they doing that?

in an attempt to deny a civil war is going on some conservatives refuse to see the truth.

when they report that 20-60 bodies have been found executed that is the shias killing sunnis.
that is not al-quieda.

we are refereeing a civil.

Oh, and while we're at it
To all of the above who keep saying "things were quieter with Saddam in charge";

Have any of you considered what Iraq would have looked like if Saddam had either (a) been assassinated (let's face it, a lot of people in the region didn't like him) or (b) just died of natural causes?

Hint; Look at Gaza and the West Bank post-Arafat.

None of his sons could have succeeded him, at least not for long. Too many people wanted their blood, in a region where blood feuds are the norm (let's be honest about that at least). His army would have rapidly disintegrated into warring factions, split along tribal/family lines.

The end result? Iraq as Somalia on steroids, with Baghdad (plus Basra in the south) more like Beirut on crack.

And that's the best-case scenario. The worst case would be if Iran moved in to "pacify" the situation (see Scenario # 2 above.) At which point the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s picks up where it left off, with a vengeance. In the end, Iran would almost certainly have won, and would have been in control of a lot larger piece of the MidEast's oil reserves, and be able to threaten the single biggest piece, namely Saudi Arabia.

(Oh, and BTW, that's where Islam's two holiest places, Mecca and Medina, are as well. If you think the present situation vis-a-vis" the Islamic world is bad, you don't want to know what it would look like if the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were holding court at the Kaaba.)

An army composed of the combined Iranian and Iraqi units and materiel' that would have survived such a confrontation would still be bigger and have more throw-weight than the Saudi armed forces, so hoping for "Mutual Assured Destruction" between Iraq and Iran wouldn't have been a useful response, either.

And the part that amuses me is, if all this had happened because we simply "let well enough alone" where Saddam was concerened, all the people who are now wagging their fingers at us about our "illegal war" and "quagmire" in Iraq would have been wringing their hands and whining, "But why didn't you DO something to avoid this?"

Sort of like they're doing about Darfur now.

That's the wonderful thing about being "progressive". You never have to admit that you're wrong about anything.

After all, your motives are pure.


cheers

eon

multiple outcomes
The 7 scenarios are not exclusive. If one happens the others may happen but at a later time.

We are likely to see an evolution of scenarios over a longer time period. 4 or 5 of the scenarios could happen in varying sequences.

None of this is good for us or the region.

My big complaints are simple. Why did we not put enough troops in early to stabilize the country? What do we need to do to force the Iraq government to make the changes that will make it stable and powerful enough to impose order and maintain it.

For religiouslib
Yes, shias kill large numbers of sunnis (and vice-versa), not only in Iraq. The only places the two sects get-along are:
(1) countries where one of the two sects is insignificant minority compared to other (Iran is surprisingly one such--almost no sunnis in existence there)
(2) countries where ALL Muslims are minorities less than 30% of total population (India, US, UK,...)
(3) Muslim-majority countries where Muslims are mainly descended from VOLUNTARY converts (such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh)

Anywhere else, the two are not compatible!

And, for BG: you're right about the outcomes not being mutually exclusive--special cases are #4 and #6, the most likely; not at all difficult to imagine the two together (basically, look at current Waziristan situation, but substitute Shia Iraqis for Sunni Pushtuns).

religiouslib
If you can't answer the question, then just say so. The Shia are killing Sunni's in retaliation to Sunni and al qaeda attacks on shia. Not at all relevant to the question asked. The Shia are in Iraq because that is their home. The question was why is Al Qaeda there and why are they killing Iraqis?

Prediction
What'll happen if we leave? Here's a nasty set of facts and potential for you:

- Turkey currently has 140,000 troops amassed on its southern border with Iraq.

- Saudi Arabia has said it will invade Iraq and stabilize the country if we do not.

- Iran has been supplying foreign fighters with explosive materials and training in order to make Iraq an extension of itself.

What'll happen if we leave? You've got "the Islamic War" between Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, al Qaeda, Baathists, Iraqi Kurds, Iraqi Sunnis, and Iraqi Shiites. Should be an absolute bloodbath.

not as bad as Bush says
Only one of these seven scenarios leads to the kind of horrific bloodbath Bush keeps warning about.

Actually, scenario (2) might be pretty good for the U.S. Because it really divides the Muslim world, pitting Sunni extremists against Shia extremists. The more those two types of extremists kill each other, the less they will attack the West.

That's also the favored scenario on Jihad Watch (jihadwatch.org), which of all the American blogs I've seen on the Internet seems to have the best understanding of Islam and its relation to the terrorist threat.

And it would finally force the West to find alternatives to Middle East oil. Because that oil would no longer be available.

Darfur
Its obvious to me that we will not leave Iraq a unified democratic and peaceful nation.
Our initial objective was regime change and the removal of Iraq as a military threat in the region. Mission easily accomplished.
Leaving Iraq with a stable government, somewhat democratic was 'a bridge too far'. Bremer blew it when he disbanded the Iraqi Army which could have restored order in those early days and the lower level Baathist party. He replaced them with nothing. Chaos reigned beyond our ability to restore civil order with a combat army or to train the undependable Iraqis who were mostly seeking a paycheck. Shia and Sunni could now begin their millenia old feuding. Baathist diehards and Shia militias warred against us hoping we'll leave. Iran and al Qaeda are now filling the power vacuum. Once we're gone then the butchery starts in earnest. Its all about who will be the power in Iraq after we go, al Qaeda or Iranian puppets in the form of Shia militias.

As far as us leaving, call it quitting or surrender or whatever, a dem will probably win in '08 and we'll be gone on 01/21/09. That's if the Republicans don't give it up beforehand in the futile hope of winning in '08. It doesn't take Napoleon to see that a US trained Iraqi police force/army will drop their guns, strip off their uniforms and run like hell at the first shot. So much for 'Vietnamization' of Iraq.

So where will we stand? What's in our best interest? The best we can hope for after we go is endless muslim on muslim conflict, Sunni vs. Shia. Sort of Hitler vs Stalin.

No matter, POTUS Hillary and VP Obama will be sending the troops for the 'Stop the Genocide in Darfur Now' military campaign with Al Sharpton, Barbra and Bono hosting the telecom for Darfur.

Rob
"The answer is AQ is fighting a war, and that's how they fight it."

Okay, but why? To what end? They fought the soviets in Afganistan but didn't target the Afghans.

apoplectic
first al-quida was not there before the war.

al-quieda in iraq is made up of 90% native born iraqis and only 10% are foreigners and half of those are saudis.

the sunnis were in control of the country now the shia are and militias and death squads of shia sprung up at the same time al-quieda in iraq did.

they are fighting each other.

we are in the middle.


























The Big Black Dog
Mr. Dog!! I posted the following response to you re: Dennis Praeger's article. Can you respond to me now?

"Mr Dog!!
Judging by the tenor of your posts, I sense that you have a certain amount of optimism regarding the terrorists. If I read you right, we in
America should not fear them since we have all of the military might at our disposal.
Also our police forces and intelligence agencies are more than capable of thwarting any attacks as demonstrated by some of the recent failed attempts.
Unfortunately, our police and our “spooks” have been greatly hampered by the emasculation of the Patriot Act and wire tapping restrictions by our “esteemed” politicos.
Mr. Dog!! We have thousands of “soft targets” that would be physically impossible to protect; schools, shopping malls, utility facilities to name a few. Are you absolutely certain that we would have no problems keeping the terrorists from successfully destroying many of these targets and terrorizing our population?
I am gravely concerned that they will get their hands on a “dirty bomb” or nuke. What then?
Is their threats to destroy us just empty rhetoric?
Finally if we tuck our tails between our legs and run, what do you foresee to be the consequences?
We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in ‘Nam and look what happened. Pol Pot butchered millions of Cambodians, the Communists in S. Vietnam conducted a similar wave of terror, and we had thousands of boat people trying to escape.
I wish I could share your optimism".
An ole Korean War Vet

stephen
I have wondered that myself.

I've been in the Army over 25 years, and was in OIF in 04 as a commissioned officer. While not in line for a deployment at the moment, it wouldnt take much for that to change.

I made it no secert I thought OIF was a bad idea. Its was born of false pretenses, and has made us a weaker country because of it. Still I went and did my job.

But because my personal integrity forces me to point out the weaknesses and falsehoods surrounding this invasion, I am first called a liar, then a traitor..and finally asked to leave the service. This by people that think the national anthem ends with the phrase 'gentlemen start your engines'.

As professionals, we are going to do our job reguardless, it is not, however, killing people who are doing what I would do if my country were invaded by a forigen army.

religiouslib
Zarqawi was in Iraq prior and most if not all of the leadership(the ones directing the attacks) are not Iraqi. Again, more obfuscation to avoid answering the question. It is a simple question.

No. 4
It will be no. 4 and will happen no matter how long we are there. We leave,the Shia strongman takes over. All you Iraq as democracy guys need to get a grip. Ain't going to happen.

Also, some of us need to put down the Sun Tzu and pick up a little Washington.

thighmaster
do you read anything outside articles that confirm your own pre-concieved ideas.





BAGHDAD — Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.

About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.

Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency.

He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.


finally as far as al-queida being in iraq before the war even bush has said that wasn't true.

Rob
You are absolutely correct about the goal of al qaeda. Would you like to explain to religiouslib how killing Iraqi's relates to that goal?

ThighMaster
None of the events would have happened had we not invaded in the first place.

Iraq never attacked the US, and if you read the ISG report, (The one from the CIA) you would see that Saddam had hoped to rebuild relations with his old allies, Rumsfield being one of them.

As for Troop casualites, they pale in comparison to the number of american paid contractors that have died. No one seems to care about them.

ThighMaster
>I'm surprised at this attitude coming from a military man who probably lost a friend or two to your "freedom fighters".

Out of our Transportation Group, we lost one person that year do to an IED. We were aggressed on just about every mission, lost a few contractors, awarded a bunch of purple hearts (mostly for hearing loss from the IED concussion)
but only one person out of 10 000 was killed.

For comparison, we have the same number of troops in all of Iraq that the Union Army used to occupy the town of Fredricksburg, and they lost 12 000 soliders in three days of fighting.

It has been said one death is a tradegy, 10 000 a statistic, but you should keep in mind that the number of US troops killed is realtivly low...mostly because of TCNs dying in our place

ThighMaster
>you're crying over spilled milk. This isn't relavent today.
Then why did you bring it up?

>Does this "rebuilding relationships" include defying the UN?

Isreal has done a lot more defying, and not a peep against them. Look up and see how many UN resolutions they blew off

>Taking shots at our jets in the no-fly zone?
The 'No Fly zone' was not a part of the UN operation Desert Storm. It was an after thought created by the US and Saudia Arabia and other countries, and was hotly contested internationally.

>Pursuing yellowcake in Niger?
Iraq had plenty of yellow cake left over from its attempt to build a reactor in 1980, but they didnt touch it because it remained under IAEC seal. If they wanted it, they could get it, but they were abiding by UN regulations

>Do you have the number of contractor deaths available?

http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2007/07/13/segments/82147

I am giving you first had information from the front line...why would you belive some web site over what I have to say?

ThighMaster
>Forgive my ignorance, but what is a TCN?

Third Country Nationals are citizens from coutnrys such as the philipines or pakastian that are sub contracted by KBR to perform all manner of tasks, including truck driving. They are paid about a third of what americans are paid, and do not have weapons or body armor eventhough they face the same risks as US troops.

They are the reason we are able to mobilize such a large for so quickly, and are dying for iraq freedom as much as anyone else.

thighmaster
Here's Frances Townsend, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, trying to explain it to NPR's Steve Inskeep:

"...when the president says that Al-Qaida in Iraq are the same people who tried to kill us, it's al-Qaida writ large -- the same al-Qaida that killed 3,000 Americans on September 11."

NPR's Steve Inskeep: "Well, you know that one of the intelligence officials who helped to draft this report has been briefing reporters, and said that before the war in Iraq, al-Qaida had no capabilities in Iraq, and that overwhelmingly now, their resources are focused inside Iraq -- not at attacking the United States. Is that correct?"

Townsend: "Al-Qaida's recourses are focused in Iraq because that's where we are capturing and killing them every single day, and so it drains their resources there. There's no question that they'd like to try and extend their reach, and we see them trying to inspire like-minded affiliates, if you will, around the world in places like London and Glasgow, but they are very much tied down, because we are keeping them tied down fighting them in Iraq."

Inskeep: "Is it correct that they had no capability in Iraq before the war?

Townsend: "I don't know. I wasn't at that briefing. I don't know what the intelligence official said.

Inskeep: "Based on your information, is it correct that they had no capability in Iraq before the war?"

Townsend: "Steve, I'm going to rely on the intelligence community. Just as this NIE is the consensus of the intelligence community, I rely on the office of the DNI for their intelligence."

Inskeep: "The Director of the National Intelligence, you're saying?"

Townsend: "That's right, and so I would refer you to them."

.......

Inskeep: "This report says, 'Right now, we assess that al-Qaida's association with al-Qaida in Iraq [this affiliate in Iraq] helps al-Qaida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for homeland attacks.' It sounds from that sentence alone like the war in Iraq has been a great boon to al-Qaida."


thighmaster
as far as casualties go, our advanced medical technology has saved many who whould have died in previous wars.

i read the other day though that for every death there are 16 wounded which is way higher than in previous wars because of the fact i stated at eh beginning.


in other words, many of the 20-40000 wounded coming home wo;uld have been dead in previous wars.

thighmaster
No. 4 because we set it up that way. The guy in charge Al Maliki is a Shia, the military is moltly Shia, the nation is primarily Shia. As to they all showing up for the election. Well of course they did to get their guys in power! But what comes next. One vote, one vote, one time.

Military View of the War
I've seen lots of supporters of the Iraq war cite special sources that they have in the military that support the ongoing strategy.

I'd like some comments on this article.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,142665,00.html

Military.com is supposedly one of, if not THE, largest representatives of the military.

So 60 percent of these folks are saying that we should get out.

Not your normal commie pinko liberal group exactly.

Rob
Well, yes and no. A successful democracy even if it followed many tenents of Sharia Law is still an enormous threat to their goal. They want to overthrow Saudi Arabia even with it's strict enforcement of Sharia Law because it is a power sharing arrangement with the clergy. All power is then not given to and derived from Allah. They believe that only by returning to the path of the "prophet" they can succeed in their duty to remake the world as Allah intended. They are following the plan laid out by Qutb.

Thigh Master
Townsend and NPR

You refer to it as insignificant.

If it was a simple point that there was little controversy over, I'd agree with you.

From my perspective, and many others like me, that isn't the case.

The administration wants it both ways. Bush has begrudgingly admitted that there was no pre-9/11 connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. At the same time, the administration keeps coming back and making the point that there WAS a connection. As recently as last week the President made an indirect link. For those who looked at the remarks very carefully, you see this connection and the lie associated with it (you would probably call it parsing).

When 40 percent of the US population says that Saddam was involved with 9/11 it is quite apparent that the administration has sold this lie very well.

This isn't a MINOR point for many of us.

Thighmaster
>Your last post did nothing to prove what you say regarding Saddam's so-called desire to rebuild relationships.

Prove? Go read the CIAs ISG report. I cant do your homework for you.

>Israel has been victimized by terrorists for decades

Isreal has been ignoring the UN for decades.Our favoritism has been on of the reasons for arab animosity directed toward the US

>Oh, and NPR is your source??? Talk about slanted!!!

My source is personal experience from the field when I was stationed there. You wanted an MSM source, so you have one.

Michael Yon states on his web site that he is 'for the troops'. While he is proud to say it, it doe not make him an objective journalist.

Thigh Master
Spinning?

Just the facts ma'm nothing but the facts.

No matter what way you look at it, only 40 percent of MILITARY types are saying that they support the current course of action.

What was it that Bush called a mandate 51 percent? If 51 percent is a mandate, what is 60 percent of the military, or 70+ percent of the general population?

religious lib
It is a proven fact that Al Qaida was there before the war along with other terrorists that Saddam was training mainly for the Palestinians. You also negate Al Qaida is there now. It is pointless to talk about before the fall of Saddam since he has fallen and we are there now and there is no turning back. You also need to realize exactly who is in bed with Al Qaida and who started the so called civil war. these guys are master manipulators that know how to control and exploit tribal ignorance. they are also master propagandists.

thighmaster
the dismissal of an interview from npr is simply hubris on your part.

there is bias in both left and right media and if you haven't realized that you are not a rational person.

you have a spolkesman for this administration making comments that are contrary to the nie officials.

Israel
The Israeli's are smart to ignore the anti-semitic UN that has caused more trouble around the world than any single nation. The UN's basic message to Israel is go commit suicide. I wouldn't listen to them either. Thank god Israel is not a lemming following the UN off the cliff into the abyss. Can the UN possibly be any more corrupt?

thighmaster
michael yon is trying to make money from his job and he appeals to the conervative blogosphere to get paid.

now do you think he as an incentive to file reports that appeal to the conservative mental?ity

dogjudge
"No matter what way you look at it, only 40 percent of MILITARY types are saying that they support the current course of action."

Completely false. You left out some important information about the poll. It said, out by the end of 2008, "That's plenty of time". The extra wording indicates that they believe the mission can be accomplished by then. The poll then looks like 58% stand behind the current course of action.

ThighMaster
>But Michael Yon is there right now and he quotes troops on the ground

Yeah, but he says on his web site he is not objective...and NPR also talks to troops (they did an interview with my unit when we were there) but you dont want to hear what they have to say.

As for dumping Israel, I can honestly say our support of them has been a root cause for a lot of the trouble we are having in the middle east, and yes, we may be better off without them

Oh wait, they have nukes. Okay, we have to kiss their a$$....like we do pakastian.

Lolo
>It is a proven fact that Al Qaida was there before the war along with other terrorists that Saddam was training mainly for the Palestinians.

I missed this report...is it available on line? I would like to read it, since it goes against what the Bush administration says about Al Queda

Hal Donohue
Saddam may not have killed as many as Hitler but it was not for lack of trying. If Hitler is the new litmus test for disposing of despotic regimes then I suppose you denounce Clinton's Bosnia and Somalia interference and do not want anything done about Darfur at all. I suppose you are demanding we pull our troops out of Bosnia immediately and Rwanda...what's that? BTW Clinton did all of his actions without the vote and approval of Congress yet we are still there? Why is that?

naked pagan
I guess you did then. Senate intelligence, 9/11 commission along with independent report that came out after Charles Dulfer but I forget his name. Report came out in late 2003 early 2004. I will see if I can find his name.

ThighMaster
Sorry about the confusion.

Sexual bias on my part. Just assumed that with ThighMaster as a moniker it had to be a woman concerned with her thighs.


Thighmaster
I did the same thing to her the other day about a NY Times article. Pointed out the blatant hypocrisy in the article itself. She ran.

Reenlistment numbers
The all time high reenlistment numbers say more than any hearsay or polling data. The soldiers are voting with their feet so to speak.

Thighmaster
>So you want to dump our biggest and best ally in the region, for what?

I wouldnt say big, not by land mass..and they dont have any oil.

I fail to see what it is the US is gaining by our blatant favoritism....at the very least we can enforce UN resolutions, we have done it in other countires.

>These are direct quotes from soldiers.
Every post I have ever made here is a direct quote from a solider...and NPR is radio, they have plenty of quotes too.

>NPR is clearly left-wing biased
This means it doesnt tow the party line like Faux news. Yes, I will agree with that.

apoplectic
Read through the reports and you will see a lot of mid carrer NCOs and Officers are leaving. This is creating a sever lack of leadership in the ranks.

lolo
If there was an Hussein +Al Quida connection why was there?

naked pagan
Soldiers who do not believe in the mission do not reenlist in record numbers no matter how you try to spin it.

val34
Ask Saddam.

naked paegan
Then I guess we could be better off without the UN becuase the're the ones who created the state of Isreal in the first place.

thighmaster
>NPR just tows the liberal party line at the expense of the truth.

I remeber a study a few years back where a majority of NPR listeners didnt think Iraq had warehouses of WMD, where as Faux news listeners thought the opposite.

All reporting has a bias,based on a number of things. Thats why you need to use a variety of sources. When I really want to catch up on something I read the Early Bird, its a DOD publication, but it is balanced.

But facts are still facts, you have to filter out the editiorialize, and see whats left.

> I'm talking about an ally willing to go to war with us
Thanks, but they are one of the reasons we are in a war in the first place.

Your not one of these 'end of timers' are you? waiting for the second coming?

>Not one single effort to find common ground
This started when I told you what was happening to contrators in the field, then how I was treated as a solider that didnt support the war....but you would rather belive a conservative blog than a first hand eye witness account. I dont think you can compromise on facts.


apoplectic
>Soldiers who do not believe in the mission do not reenlist in record numbers no matter how you try to spin it

I would like to see your source for 'record numbers'

Just check and you will see the real issue is E-6 and above and the LT and CPTs. People cashing in on retirement and worried about their families.



sheepdog
>Then I guess we could be better off without the UN becuase the're the ones who created the state of Isreal in the first place

Maybe so.

iraq
perhaps with the encouragement they are receiving from the dims those we are fighting in iraq may feel they are on the verge of winning. This might actually drive the cockroaches out from under their rocks and into the daylight. Our soldiers need to be given the rules of engagement that will let them effectively deal with these killers. The president must realize that his continued attempt to placate the saudi's is useless. Somebody in Washington needs to get the president's attention to allow the military to fight

Lolo
Don't need to. the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

thighmaster
>Don't you find that odd?
Not really, since they are not americans. Who cares? Course Bush Co should be thankful that they have managed this part of the story, otherwise people would be ( I hope) outraged..you did read the NPR transcript didnt you? It does talk about why this is under reported.

>acclaimed combat journalist that's with our troops right now on the front lines.
He admits he is bias in his reporting since he is 'for the troops'..and I doubt he cares about contractors either.

>That was 3 years ago, would you at least admit that a lot has changed there now?
A lot more people have died, and there are still plenty of IEDs going off inspite of plans "A" "B" "C" and so on. Sure things have changed, doesnt mean they got any better.

> soldiers that are there right now making progress are saying.
This is the same stuff they were saying back in '04...rose pedals, dead enders, home by christmas. I didnt belive it then, and I see no reason to believe it now.

Like Pres Bush said "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice and ..uh, um...you wont fool me again"

wildwest
>Our soldiers need to be given the rules of engagement that will let them effectively deal with these killers

What about the ROE would you like to see changed?

Thighmaster
Iran probably thinks it has a right to develop its own nuke. But we think it does not have such a right.

I have no illusions about Islam. Notice, I said Islam, not "radical Islam", or "Islamofascism", etc.

It is much, much more than what we in the west define as "religion". With its shariah law, it encompasses the whole spectrum of human activity.

And I believe the only difference between socalled moderate muslims, and the socalled radicals, is in tactics, not goals.

We will not be able to permanently keep Iran from developing a nuke. Given that, our efforts should be in encouraging unrest within the regime...something we have not been pursuing with as much vigor as I would have wanted.

I am not against a tactical air strike to destroy their nuclear program, but from what I hear much of this program is deep in underground bunkers. An additional problem is any military attack by us may result in Iranians rallying around their flag. After all, it is an attack on their nation.

Iranians wanting closer relations with the west would be seen as fools, supporting the forces that attack their homeland.

Iranians probably think their nation has the same rights as any other nation, including our own, in developing nuclear weapons.

Silly fools that they are.

stephen
What in the heck are you talking about?

val34
So are you saying that if Saddam does harbor our enemies and works against us he therefore isn't an enemy?


naked pagan
The name I believe I was looking for was David Kay.

More suggested reading
the lectures and books by Bernard Lewis, Princeton's Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies. Ph.D. in the history of Islam.

Forewarning though he writes alot and is alot to digest.

chr3354
That is good news but I doubt it will make little difference.

lolo
of course the liberals are to blinded by their hatred of president bush because they believe he stole the 2000 election. i really think if that election had not been so close that we would not have as much trouble with the extreme left.

Thighmaster
Did you read the link Stephen gave you? He left out some critical info in that link.

Thighmaster
What was missing is although foreign fighters are the smallest percentage the report then states and in several places that they wield by far the biggest influence. Puts a different context on his 3:29 post to you.

ThighMaster
Im not talkin from a prepare script. I'm talkin from personal experience. Maybe other people are having the same experiences, I dont know. I do know I have no idea what you mean by 'liberal talking point' or where I could find them.

You can have an opposing view, but with the case of OIF, its not from first hand experience.

Lolo
>David Kay

If you are refering to the senate sub committe hearing, he said that "Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here."



naked pagan
That's not all he said and you know it. Your cherry picking.

A Conservative Plan for Iraq

Anyone who questions the lack of a realistic and comprehensive Iraq strategy is labeled a friend of fascism by the Republican leadership. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) recently said, “I wonder if [Democrats] are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.” Republicans are paralyzed with the fear of being thought ineffective on national security and the war.

Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership cannot seem to accept that—regardless of how we got there—we are in Iraq. They have not made a convincing case that an arbitrary phased or date-certain troop withdrawal is in the best long-term interest of the United States. Rather, they seem to think that withdrawal will undo the decision to have gone to war. Rubbing President Bush’s nose in Iraq’s difficulties is also a priority.

This political food fight is stifling the desperately needed public discussion about a meaningful resolution to the fire fight. Most Americans know Iraq is going badly. And they know the best path lies somewhere between “stay the course” and “get out now”.

Some Truths

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/a-conservative-plan-for-iraq



naked pagan
Sorry, had to step out for awhile.
re: army reenlistments

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46699

Stephen
That link was in response to a previous request concerning my posts regarding army reenlistment. By the way, ad-homonym arguments are not very persuasive. You should try debating the facts rather than their sources.

Scaife Newspaper Calls For Withdrawl
Scaife Newspaper Calls for Troop Withdrawal, Questions Bush’s ‘Mental Stability’

Richard Scaife is the foundation the Republican base rests on. “Scaife has been a loyal backer of Republican politicians and many conservative causes, and funded a network of investigations into President Clinton during the 1990s.“ But now he’s come down with a bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. He wants out of Iraq, suspects Bush is crazy, and agrees with Rep Murtha. Ouch.

Tribune-Review (h/t C&L): The Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday called the Bush administration’s plans to stay the course in Iraq a “prescription for American suicide.”

The editorial … added, “And quite frankly, during last Thursday’s news conference, when George Bush started blathering about ’sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don’t enable you to be loved,’ we had to question his mental stability.”

It continued: “President Bush warns that U.S. withdrawal would risk ‘mass killings on a horrific scale.’ What do we have today, sir?

“If the president won’t do the right thing and end this war, the people must. The House has voted to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by April. The Senate must follow suit.

Read the rest of this entry »

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/scaife-owned-newspaper-calls-for-iraq-troop-withdrawal-and-questions-bushs-mental-stability


Thighmaster
Hal0 did state that he is Barbara Walters. It was the ONLY valid point of his post, but there was one.

crosswise
i have noticed other occasions where libs attrack soldiers and challenge their military service. Thank you for your service to this great country. That you for defending our freedom that allows us as well as the idiots who show up here the right to post our views

stephen
You attempt to paint all Iraqi's with a broad brush. There are some that are standing up and it's happening more and more. Boy your gonna hate Coulter's column tommorrow. BTW I do put up alot more than talking points...sorry you missed them, but that's not my problem it's yours.

stephen
This post is not to belittle you. This very subject we are talking about was gone into in depth on O'Reilly with Dr. Scheuer and Stratfor agency(can't remember his name)you might find it interesting. Confirms some of what your saying some of it is refuted. Believe it or not I do understand where you are coming from.

Thighmaster
I know, for some reason I felt compelled to try. Thanks for the advice and I'll try and remember that. Glutton for punishment I guess...

Thighmaster
Did you know that Babrwa WaWa is gracing us with her presence? What next Oprah?

Thighmaster
LMAO!!!!

will
No Iraq has become the battle cry, and Pakistan the training ground. So when do we start bombing Pakistan?

incognito
So what's the Dems plan for the aftermath of Iraq? What is the plan that the Iraq Study group and every expert in the ME and here at home has said will happen? If you want to pull out what is your plan? Let's hear it.

Scaredofadouche
So your saying it's Bill Kristol's fault now? Really I wasn't aware he held any kind of public office. When and what was he elected to? Please elaborate.

Thighmaster
No your not wrong. Sorry about encouraging incognito.

Thighmaster
Have you noticed they are all in praise of those Rep. lawmakers that agree with them? Like Lugar? They criticize them for everything else and all of a sudden we have had the second comming. Dissent is only a virtue if you are a liberal.

Scaramouche
That's exactly what you posted. I even clicked on your ignorant Wikipedia article.

one question
if us being in iraq is such a recruitment tool for aq then just imagine if they can say they scared off the worlds only current super power. leaving iraq before the iraqis are ready would give aq a massive recruitment tool for years to come.

Thighmaster
I would say that would be a grand plan but you presume they want to win.

chr3354
Well put! and good point.

planning for military action
as anyone who has served in the military or even played real time stratigy games regulary there is one think you learn about planning. the enemy will never follow your plan.

will
So now your personally attacking Thighmaster? Is that your answer? I notice you didn't dare answer or do that F1etch on the Michael Moore column.

Scaredofadouche
BTW I blame the mess on mistakes made. Because mistakes happen in a time of war. There is no such thing as perfection in all things. Does Bush share some responsibility...yep. said that before. So do others as well, but reality is mistakes happen.

Mr Big Black Dog
Mr. Dog
Thank you for responding and for your courtesy in calling me Mr. Willi. I really appreciate that.

You said: “i just never understood how being in iraq makes these targets any less soft or keeps terrorists from hitting them.”

Apparently you don’t believe that fighting them in their backyard rather than trying to defend ours keeps them off balance. If this is so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

You said: “I've been saying for months to bring the troops home to help us guard our borders, ports, airlines, railways and infrastructure. I also believe that strong intelligence and police work can thwart these kind of threats before they happen - thoug, of course, there's no way to completely abridge every threat.”

If you honestly believe that we have enough manpower to prevent them from hitting us with a dirty bomb or nuke, then I can’t argue with you. I just don’t believe that we do.

You said: “Vietnam was a lose-lose from day Uno. As to Cambodia - we were never at war with Cambodia - and unless you were willing to invade THAT country as well, there's was little we could do about Pol Pot. I agree that the commies did evil damage to the South Vietnemese - “

Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the whole idea in ‘Nam was to contain Communism as we did in Korea. Unfortunately, the MSM and the politicos interfered and screwed things up very badly.
According to many ‘Nam vets who I know personally and who are my comrades in arms, we won every major battle. Unfortunately we quit and left the people living in the region to the mercy of Uncle Ho.

You said: “but how many Americans would YOU have sacrificed to keep those folks safe?”

You are asking a hypothetical question approximately 34 years after the cessation of hostilities. Since I was not in the military at that time, having been honorably discharged in November of 1959, and not in the leadership position to make crucial life and death decisions, I’m going to decline to answer the question.

You said: “As to Cambodia - we were never at war with Cambodia - and unless you were willing to invade THAT country as well, there's was little we could do about Pol Pot.”

Same answer as above.

BTW the only "yella busturds" that I'm aware of are those who fake an injury or illness to get a medical discharge. Or run to a foreign country to escape the draft.
An ole Korean War Vet

Lolo
Sorry it's been a while. What I'm saying is that if Saddamm helped Al-Quida it was only because we made him our enemy so he turned to any others that might help him, Even those he feared and loathed.


Scaredofadouche
Your non-sensical posts really make me and my entire family laugh! It's all Bush bashing all the time! Wow what an enlightened objective thinker you are....NOT!

val34
Don't worry about it being awhile. I understand when people have things to do. As to Saddam are you trying to tell me he should not have become an enemy with the enormous amount of atrocities he's committed in his own country let alone Kuwait? I'm sorry I just don't buy that argument. He also made himself an enemy the minute he tried to take Kuwait. Sudan is another one that needs to become an enemy and eventually they will I guarantee it. Their help in the past has been in the form of basically bribery to keep us off their back but their day of reckoning is coming.

will
Okay if you say so. But it really didn't seem that way.

Thighmaster
Watch it! Scaredofadouche will start nit picking your spelling next, because that's all he's got.

Okay You Guys
No Porn talk! Yuk!

Stephen
First off, thank you for your service to yours and my country. I don't mean to insult you, but if you don't believe that what you are doing is in the best interest of your country, why are you in the service? I mean I could see you saying that if you were drafted, but we now have an all volenteer service. Again, I don't mean to insult.

Why? Lolo
I always come back to the argument that it wasn't in our stratigic interest to invade Iraq or even to meddle in the affairs of any Middle Eastern country that does'nt impact our place in the world. He was a bad guy. So are many others. The only real excuse in this case is that there was a stratigic vital interest that we do. But there wasn't. So he invaded Kuwait! Soooo! We sat right by while the Dutch abandoned the Tutsis in Rwanda. Why all the concern for some small Arab kingdom?

We defend Mussareff as our ally while he took power in a coup against a democracy. The Saudis aren't exactly choirboys and they get invited to state dinners and nights over at the ranch!

This whole episode has been poorly mismanaged by the Bushes and its time conservatives (if there are any left) say so!

Thighmaster
He keeps using Bill arkin who is not a military expert in way, shape, form. He is a GreenPeace Activist. I could rip apart his post, but this time I'm going to watch. Maybe I will later.

val34
Yet I hear from the left how we need to stop being friends with these people. First off we cannot take on the world all at once, not to mention numerous other laws and economic principles as well not only for us but them. Saddam crossed the line. We had to take his threats at value especially since we didn't take OBL at face value. Thirdly it is of strategic importance when you consider who their neighbor is and what their intentions are. I see where you are coming from and I could post a ton but I'm not incognito. I just simply disagree.

will
He has come out and said mistakes have been made. He also has said he wishes he were a better speaker. With the current political climate if I were him I wouldn't either. He would end up looking like a whipped dog and the enemy would run with it. Look at the Dems everything is about obstruct! I agree mistakes have been made. I never said there wasn't. But you have to put it in context. All wars have mistakes. I bet if we resurrected Ghengis Khan and Napolean they would tell you about all kinds of mistakes. You know of the mistakes in our previous wars so I don't need to tell you those. Your not stupid. The fact that this has not been easy or that mistakes have been made does not negate that we need to win it especially since it would slow down new recruits. It certainly would make them think twice. However losing would embolden them more than ever. Think Taliban with money.

will
I think you think that I am a Bush apologist. I am not. But I do support the war. I also understands where he is coming from at least. He really needs to loosen the ROE for one. I don't give a fig about what retired generals say though. For every general thrown out there , there is another that disagree's. What chaps me is the Dems calling for troop increase for two years, then they get it, then they do a 180. Far too many mixed messages from them.

Thighmaster
Good night. Gotta go too. I have chores.

val34
one more thing. I have no answers about Musharraf.

ThighMaster
>First hand experience from 3 years ago.
>Now you have as much perspective as anyone else.

Im still in the miltiary, still preparing for deployment, still getting ready do to my job. Any war, any time any where

>And what you keep spouting has almost no relavence in 07.

Our Guard unit still doesnt have trailers to replace the ones we left over there. I dont see how the volience has gotten any less. Iraqis are not 'standing up'. The 'dead enders' are still fighting...kind like we are stuck...in a quagmire


>You don't want to acknowledge that troops over >there are reporting good progress because it >doesn't fit your view.
They're have always been good progress reports. Rescue of PFC Lynch, free elections,Banks set up, schools being built, hospitals open...heck, all this good news for all these years, how come our troops are still there?

Let me know when oil is being pumped, and I'll be impressed. How can we invade iraq and have gas go over $3 a gallon?


>You say that my point of view is somehow less >important than yours because 3 years ago you >might have been in Iraq.
It gives me street cred. You have talking points, I have personal experience. For the record I am a commissoned officer in a transportation unit.


>You ask what a liberal talking piont is?
Yes, and you fail to answer.

>So go be enlightened,
You know what you read, I know what I lived.

apoplectic
I hope an army press release isnt your only source...btw, it doesnt say 'record' what it says is

"101 percent of goal for the active Army, 119 percent for the Army Reserve,... told American Forces Press Service."

So its not even hard numbers (I would think they are classified anyway), just a percentage of a goal, and the easiest way to make a goal is to lower the bar.

Can We Accomplish What We When There For
Excluding all present interference from al Qaeda, Iran, so called insurgences, the root problem in Iraq is three rigorous sects.

You have the Kurd’s in the north. They love us.

You have the Shiite’s, they are glad to be out from under Saddam’s domination, but they don’t like us that much. As someone has pointed out, weapons that we gave Saddam were used on them.

You’ve got the Sunni’s; they really don’t like us because we kicked them out of power.

The Sunni’s and Shiite’s have religious differences that go right to the bone.

Although the Shiite’s are the majority population, Saddam’s Sunni’s kept them under control with fear, and torture.

Since Saddam’s fall, the US has been trying to put a political system in place to unite these people in a democracy. They are not like Methodist, Catholics, and Baptist, and Atheists.
To us, religious differences are not something that affects our political system to the point that we would kill each other over them.

These people tribal religious system governs everything in there lives.

There religious leaders descend through particular blood lines, and the Sunni’s and Shiite’s see things differently concerning who has a right to rule. This is a very, very serious obstacle in there ability to get along.

The only way that a peaceful democracy can be accomplished is to convert them all to one religion, which is not going to happen, or divide the country which I’m not informed enough to know what would be the end result. The only other solution which defeats the whole purpose for going there is to let it be dominated by another dictator such as Iran.

The only way that Saddam keep this religious rivalry under control was by force.

You can call it racial or political rivalry if you want, but it stems from Islamic religious roots.

NIE undercuts Bush’s story line

Sobering intelligence report undercuts Bush’s story line

How has the war in Iraq helped when al-Qaeda has reconstituted northwestern Pakistan? And if we had focused on Afghanistan would we have been able to stop the re-originations of al-Qaeda on their boarder in Pakistan?

USATODAY-New estimate demonstrates need to refocus on threat behind 9/11.

This week, the Bush administration issued what amounts to a status report on the war on terror it launched almost six years ago in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The report came in the form of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which distills the best analysis of 16 intelligence agencies about the battle against Islamic extremism.

The document itself — a two-page summary of a wider, still-classified report — isn’t particularly new or surprising. Its findings reflect trends that are visible in daily news reports. What’s striking, though, is the way its story line diverges from the standard White House portrayal of the war on terror, which casts Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network as on the run and the Iraq war as the primary front.

The intelligence agencies say al-Qaeda has reconstituted its central organization, putting the United States in a “heightened threat environment.” Al-Qaeda’s leaders have established a new haven in remote, tribal areas of northwestern Pakistan.

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/sobering-intelligence-report-undercuts-bushs-story-line


naked pagan
"I hope an army press release isnt your only source...btw, it doesnt say 'record' what it says is

"101 percent of goal for the active Army, 119 percent for the Army Reserve,... told American Forces Press Service."

So its not even hard numbers (I would think they are classified anyway), just a percentage of a goal, and the easiest way to make a goal is to lower the bar."

You're right, I should believe your made up accusation instead. Of course the Army lowered it's reenlistment targets to put out a positive press release that gets carried by none of the MSM!!! Boy don't I feel stupid.

thighmaster
re-writing history like alot of conservatives like to do.

clinton took a shot at obl, he missed him but he shot at him.
FACT

then was accused of "wagging the dog" remember?

apoplectic
Apparently, you never had an Army public affairs class.

First rule is never lie. Second rule is to paint everything is a positive light.

They did both here.

I dont know how you got 'record' out of that press release. It just shows a higher percentage than what was expected, and they start polling troops about their intentions a year out.

The goals are being adjusted continously. It may not be headlines, but its reported. Try and keep up, please, and dont get sucked in by propraganda.

Go find re enlistements for mid level enlisted and officers, I know that has been out there recently. It may shed some light on what Im saying.

thighmaster
>Clinton did nothing to capture/kill OBL. FACT

Neither has Bush. Fact...

thighmaster
you said it was a fact that clinton did "nothing" to capture/kill obl.

well like almost all of your "facts" you are wrong by your own admission.

sheesh

naked pagan
you are right of course,
the armhy missed its recruitment goal in both may and june and is losing captains at an alrming rate.


that is why bush is against the pay raise suggested by congress for the military (yes bush is balking at a 3.5% increase for the military,) becasue bonuses are the only way to keep people in the military right now.

ThighMaster
Not a talking point, its a fact. Trying is not good enough. Results are the issue here.

Carter tried to save american hostages in Iran, but no one gave him credit for that.

Actually, I wasnt following HalO, but he has a right to his opinon. Im not the one that puts soliders on a pedstal, its the Republican party, but only as long as it serves their intrests

no thighmaster
terrorism wasn't an issue in this country for dems or repubs until 1999 and at least clinton did something.

in his attempt to be the anti-clinton bush ignored the documented evidence that richard clarke had put together for him.(bush)
that was not clintons fault.

Three War Theory
In truth, that we are seeing reasonable discussion as to what wouold happen in Iraq if the US withdrew is a very good sgn. The Bush postulation that Iraq would become an Al Quaeda hot bed sounds reasonable, but few have bothered to really analyze the possible outcomes.

The seven possible scenarios have to be based on teh realization that there are three wars going on in Iraq, not one. We have a terrorist campaign against the US, waged primarily by secular ex baathists and jihadis comprising AQ in Iraq.

We have a civil war between secular Arab Sunnis and religious Persian/Arab Sh'ia.

We have a proxy war between the US and Iran.

The US will be gone, so the shakey alliance currently battling the US will likely dissipate, with the remnants affiliating with one of the two major groups. That war will effectively be over.

If the US leaves, the Sunni and Sh'ia population will undoubtedly engage in a bloody conflict. The Sh'ia, supported by Iran will defeat the secular Sunni and the ultimate result would likely be a partition of sorts.

The big issue is what happens to the foreign types. They will not be able to develop a sophisticated operational capacity here, for three reasons

Their hatred of the US is based on the proximity of US forces. They are not likely to sit around waitng for something to develop. The Sunni secularists will not be able to work with teh AQ jihadis. The Religiously focused Sh'ia will not allow SUnni Jihadis free reign within the nation.

The actual oputcome is mos tlikely to be a combination of option 4 and 7. The idea that an Iraq controlled by Iran would become Sunni terror center is highly unlikely. The best evidence for that is that Iran coul dbe provding that same terror haven now, if they were so inclined. BUt they are not.


For Thighmaster et al
Here's a Bush Clinton comparison for you.

Clinton: effectively destroyed Iraqi WMD capacity in an air campaign costing less than 500 million dollars, lasting one day, and resulting in no American deaths.

Bush: initiated an uneccesary ground war that destroyed no WMD's, cost 600 billion dollars and cost 3500 American lives.

WHo had the best plan?

ThighMaster
You speak in cliques...what possible talkin point are you refering too? Where is this list?

Im not sure what bashing he did, and Im really not all that concerned about it. If the guy he was talkin to is a SF Major, he can take care of himself.

If you mean denigrate, I also do not understand what you mean by that either. Soliders are humans with all the same strengths and weaknesses as anyone else.

ThighMaster
Augmentitive and non responsive. Guess you ran out of things to say..fear not, O'Riely factor is on every day.

IM not sure what you mean by supporting the troops. If you mean getting a yellow ribbon thats one thing. If you mean voting for a tax hike to make sure we get the equipment we need and asking for a draft so we can get the man power we need, well, thats something else. Which would have a greater impact on our operations?

>Just thought you might have the guy's back,
An SF Major does not need my help.

Thighmaster
>No tax hike or draft, but I do volunteer at the local VA hospital. I also do some charity work to benefit the families of the fallen.

I maintain a team of combat ready troops, set to depoly at any time any where in the world. Dont tell me I support the troops.

Thanks for making sure we get the equpiment and manpower we need. Appreciate your sacrifice.

>defending myself against your adhominem attacks
What are you talking about?

>quit whining about it and man-up as they say.
What are you talking about?

naked pagan
"Apparently, you never had an Army public affairs class.

First rule is never lie. Second rule is to paint everything is a positive light.

They did both here."

Look genius, where do you suppose you can get Army reenlistment data if not from the Army? Are you aware of a KGB website that posts the "real numbers"? In my experience in the Army, I only met a few officers that were worth a crap. The ones that were good, were very good. The rest were a shade above worthless. Looks like things haven't changed.


Thick Thighs
You ask what Clinton did in Iraq? December 1998? OPeration Desert Fox? Cheap, efficient, no casualties. (Actually took 4 days give or take)

ISG report indicated that Desert Fox effectively eliminated any remaining WMD capacity Hussein may have been trying to maintain.



apoplectic
>Look genius, where do you suppose you can get Army reenlistment data if not from the Army?

I wouldnt get in from a news release. There are other sources out there, but remember, actual troop strengths would be classified.

>a KGB website that posts
Really? They're still in business?

> Looks like things haven't changed.
Gosh, dont know where this came from. I just dont see how you got 'record' re enlistments from an offical press release. It doesnt say that anywhere in there.


Did you try and look up the statuses of mid level enlisted and commissioned officers? Maybe your scared you will have to re evaluate your position?

apoplectic
Did your homework for you...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271638,00.html

Why offer incentives? Isn't freedom incentive enough?

Turn On PBS Thursday Evening
"America at the Crossroads" right now is running one of the best things I have ever seen on the war in Iraq. Its focus is our very frustrating attempt to train the Iraqi police and army. Maybe they will re-run this, I don't know. It is excellent. Whichever side of this you are on, conservative or liberal, we are all going to agree that training the Iraqis is VERY frustrating.

Jack
Please don't defend the Clinton adminitration, I may have to take back all the nice things I've been saying about you.

What you say may be the only effentive thing Clinton did in this war.

The man should have been impeached, and I don't mean for sexual misconduct.

He was a smart man, but he was as self serving as any of our worst presidences.


thighmaster
when is say it was not an issue if you go balck and look at the list of things people were concerned about prior to 1999 you will not find terrorism on the list.

neither dems or repubs were giving speechs or talking about terorrism.

i do not hate bush and never have.

that is simply a talking point that republicans use when they cant' debate the issues.

you are so caught up in your persoanl war against liberals you can't think straight.


did you personally think terrorism was the number one issue in the 2000 election.
well the republicans didn't because it was never addressed in that election.


ThighMaster
ThighMaster, Jack's talking about Iraq's chemical and bio weapons.

After the Israeli's finished with Iraq's nuclear facility, Saddam didn't have much of the program reconstituted, although he was trying.

Nobody from the Democrats wants to bring up the fact that Clinton stripped the military budget to the bone.

We had 400 cruise missles in the Gulf region, we used 200 in Desire Fox, leaving us with 200.

In a state department briefing General Shelton was ask this question after Desire Fox:

"Q: General, when you considered how to respond to Saddam Hussein, which really amounts to using a lot of force to change one man's mind, did you look at any alternatives to the bombing that we've done so many times, and each time he defies us at a cost of several billion dollars?
For instance, would it make any sense to have a United Nations rifle company with stronger forces over the horizon escorting the inspectors? In other words, have you looked at any alternatives to this strategy which failed to change Churchill's mind; failed to change Ho Chi Minh's mind; and we keep doing it. Are there some options that you've explored other than this?
General Shelton: George, we have examined a number of options and continue to examine other options. But I think the truth is, what we have here is a Saddam Hussein who is intent on defying UNSCOM, intent on defying the international community, the United Nations, everyone, and continuing to develop and pursue his programs of weapons of mass destruction.
In looking at the other alternatives, there are very few that are really viable under the existing conditions other than the program that we've been pursuing for about eight years, and that is to have him come clean, get out from under the sanctions, and rejoin the international community, which would certainly be best for the Iraqi people."

Well, it would have been nice if he would have complied with the UN's wishes, but he didn't, and that nonsense about maybe he would have was not being realistic with this man.

Sanctions were not working. He was starving his people while stock piling money and using the suffering as a propaganda tool.

It would be nice if we weren't there, but we are.

This has become a complicated problem with few solutions.

We would have eventually have had at least 4 nuclear powers not counting Saudi, which would have been number 5. Four of them Arab and hostle toward Israel.

I don't know about you, but I feel like something needs to be done to stablize the Middle East without war if it can be done.

You are not being realistic if you think that this many Muslim nations with nukes are not dangerous.

Someone said that you can't believe that they would use them, think of the retaliation.

People are already saying that if they attack Israel, that's there problem.

Do you think anyone is going to get involved in a religous war.

People on Town Hall are already saying let them kill each other.

Jack actually had a pretty go plan for Israel's problem's. It's better then what they're living with now.

As a Christian I know how this is going to end.

But even as a Christian I have been called to occupy this earth until God's plan is fulfilled.

We must deal with secular issues with wisdom.

So, that's why it's difficult to engage in these secular issues with people that don't have a Bibical perspective.







U.S. should focus more on Pakistan


Giuliani: U.S. should focus more on Pakistan

I agree with Rudy we need to focus more in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unless we understand the real issue in Iraq is political our troops will be bog down in a civil war which will keep increasing al-Qaeda’s strength. We must recognize the different groups in Iraq and stop forcing a strong federal government. The Parliament in Iraq spoke by refusing to meet to iron the differences between the groups before the September deadline and going on vacation for the month of August.

A surge or withdrawal is a tactic not a plan. Neither idea has a chance without calming sectarian violence.

USATODAY-The United States has been distracted “for a while” by military setbacks and political heat surrounding the Iraq war, Giuliani said, not focusing enough on al-Qaeda’s resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

…Some of Giuliani’s comments echoed critics of the war in Iraq who argue that the invasion drew attention and resources away from the battle against the home base of al-Qaeda, which carried out the 9/11 attacks. Giuliani, however, called the Iraq war “enormously important,” but he said other challenges from Islamic terrorism also demanded attention….

….”I said it a long time ago … America is too consumed with Iraq,” he said. “We’ve got to be patient and committed (in Iraq), but we’ve got to multitask. We’ve got to have conversations beyond Iraq. We’ve got to talk about Iran — Iran is more dangerous than Iraq — and we have to get the job done in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.”…..

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/giuliani-us-should-focus-more-on-pakistan

Rest of the story
Austin's article poses several scenarios if we leave. Since our desire to cut and run is fueled by the dems who hope that failure will put them in the whitehouse and the anti-war nuts only worry about themselves in this mess, those are OK scenarios. But what about the rest of the story - what happens here in the U.S. as a result of those scenarios? What about gas prices/availability? what about U.S.'s ability to leverage politically now that we have proven (if we leave before the job is done) we are no longer a serious force to be reckoned with? Where does the economy go? And if a war emerges over there that starts involving western countries, how many of our servicemen/women will be killed? Better we get back to principle and fight to win this war which is winnable, especially if the media and dems quit helping the terrorists.

Al
Good point made
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.