Pentagon F.U.P. #372797836

Iraq was one big @$$ mistake. Maybe Bush Jr. should listen to what some of his dad's advisers had to say about Iraq. Like James Baker who knew what would happen if the UN overthrew Saddam.

Bush says Iraq would be a beacon of light for democracy. But Kuwait is democratic, UAE and Qatar are pushing for elections and Yemen is on its way to becoming a real republic. The Middle East does not need democracy. People are happy the way it is because you have people who know how to run a country running countries. Of course not in Iraq, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, but the majority of the Middle East has the right people running nations and are going towards constitutional monarchies.

 

Winning = Setting ground for a true democracy where people can better attempt to live together without oppression.

Losing = We pull out tomorrow, The richest Middle-Easterner steps up and declares himself King... Everything goes back to the way it was...

Do you think the soldiers who gave their lives would want us to pull out before the job is done? Do you think they would want Iraq and the Middle East to go back to the way it was before this war started?

If you give your life for a certain goal, wouldn't you AT LEAST wish for that goal to be carried out? I definitely would.

And if you say it wasn't our place to intervene, or that Iraq has nothing to do with the safety of our country or citizens, you're wrong. A successful country NEEDS allies, and we have a shortage of those in the Middle-East... The "US vs THEM" attitude that has only gotten worse over time was about to hit it's boiling point, and we were about to see tragedies we haven't seen since WW2. We are trying to pull the weeds before it takes over the lawn...

that's my view of it.

 

Iraq had nothing to do with the safety of the United States. Apparently, now we needed to invade Iraq to secure allies by your logic. And, further, you fail to explain how people, such as opposing sunnis and shia, will be able to live together without repression and embrace their democracy, inspite of offing each other daily. Your scenario of "losing" illicits the precise argument of why this war should never have been instituted in the first place - there was absolutely nothing to gain from this war and everything to lose the minute it began.

The goal of this war was never legitimate, and eventually exposed as an outright lie. Should not future lives be saved from dying for a lie in order to honor those who have gone before them? The goal of this campaign has now morphed from preventing the alleged mushroom cloud over Manhattan and wiping out Saddam's nonexistent wmds, while also crippling the link between Iraq and Al Queda (although there was none. period.), to spreading democracy and fighting terrorism in a country which did not experience this level of terrorism prior to the U.S. invasion.

This war is a potential generation-crippling farce, built and executed upon an incorrect assumption, or massive, massive failure of United States intelligence at the highest level.

That said, what of the moral obligation of the U.S now that the U.S. has crippled Iraq? Personally, this troubles me. The majority of troops need to leave now, leaving behind only those to train the Iraqis, and immediately institute continuous and massive aid, reminiscent of the Marshall Plan, to ensure that the hoped progress towards this "goal" in Iraq continues to develop.

 

Turns out that the OP was unduly alarmist.

There's been a clarification from the pentagon that the policy order was basically a restatement of one issued in 2005 and nothing much will change. The idea of course is to prevent dissemination of critical location and tactics data on current campaigns.

As to the replies, I'm working on them.

{added} Of course many are wondering how "Wired.com" got it so wrong.

Also....I accidently hit on paydirt:

America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between the United States and Its Enemies (Paperback)

I'm going to have to renew my library card.. or maybe $10 is a pretty good deal for a non-passionate treatment on what the war is REALLY about.

 

Were going backwards on that front.

So your telling me the USvsThem mentality was bigger pre war then it is now. As I seem to recall they were protesting on our behalf world wide including in Tehran following 9/11. We completly squandered that. This war has done exactly the opposite of diffusing the USvsThem problem.

 

Suppose then, considering the credentials stated below, that you inform us as to how that impression gets disseminated throughout the middle east. It would help also if you told us whejter or not it was true that "America" REALLY feels this way.

What neo-cons are those? I assume Rush Limbaugh. Strangely that classes me as a non-neo-con because I supported Clinton sending in ground troops.

A strangely pessimistic view. And conceivably true if the idea was to create a truly homogenous state. As in the Balkans, any autocrat can exploit this to his advantage, creating an atmosphere of terror for anyone not sharing his ethnicity or politics.. but what if there were a GREATER unifying theme... such as security against a threat from without... is that NOT the reason for 'nations' in the first place?

A nugget of truth surrounded by political meme. You have struck another nugget below..to wit: a power vaccum in which the US is seen in sort of a 'Nineties Manchester United' allegory.. but the order of points makes coherent response difficult.

You lectured for twenty five years, you were ALSO military.. yet see fit to misuse the definition of 'Mission' for political means. Taken out of context, that mission accomplished IS ridiculous... but it's an inconvenient fact that listening or reading the actuall full speech gives the lie to it... and makes the user of the meme non-credible.

Another nugget.... yet the news (page 2 or 3) of the time surrounding the invasion made it clear that the DIA was desperately looking for Republican Guards units to turn against Saddam.. As a Student of the region, you're aware of course, that standard IA units were grossly ineffective and not to be counted on, in any sense. Added to that, even the Republican Guard had been so corrupted and fearful of Saddam's swift vengeance for any disloyalty, real or imagined, that they simply didnt trust the feelers sent out from us... thinking that it MIGHT be Saddam's agents pretending to be us?
CERTAINLY it is true that Bremer turned out a putz.. the IA should have been reconstitued ASAP, but I suspect there was a lot of resistance to that from Shia. Note that nominal Baathist government bureaucrats have finally been given their jobs back.

Again a student of the region might point out exactly WHAT that diplomacy might consist of, especially any that hadnt already been tried.

I'm not sure you can speak for the military... this is not a bunch of draftees like they were when we were young.

My final word on it... I've known for some time you had an investment in your views, I had no idea it was a 25 year investment.

As to your 'balkanization' theme, I find it amazing that I read Iragi blogs including many that are and/were against invasion in the first place, yet they do not claim to speak as Sunni, Shia, Fallujan or Baghdadian.. they claim to speak as Iraqi's and I have yet to read one that WANTS partition, maybe I missed it?

For all you that are or were against the war. I submit you have your right to that. However keep your finger in the air to see which direction the winds blow, because they are shifting. Probably, in small part, thanks to Harry Reid.

For Dems, politics is one thing... but reality bites back at some point in time.
As for the 'obsession' with winning or losing'... I dont understand the point. Any endeavor is judged on the result. The result is considered success or failure.

Don pointed it out: If the Dems can make Dubya pull out the troops they can blame the 'failure' on Dubya. If the troops remain after 2008, then they will not be able to pull out.

Folks it's a propaganda war and has been for a long time.

 

As far as Iraq debate is concerned it dosen't get any better than this............. George Galloway vs Christopher Hitchens

They debated last year.

part 1; http://youtube.com/watch?v=INy2ysHhgYM

part 2; http://youtube.com/watch?v=zH_BULU2vcM& ... ed&search=

Its long but worth it, Hitchens gets the first go and takes a while to get moving but once he does, boy does he ever! and Galloway never hesitates. So don't give up on it if it seems boring 10 minutes in, you'll thank yourself.

Both these guys are incredibly witty, smart, and composed. Their views couldn't contrast more and they hold back nothing! Personal insults are free flowing and the crowd gets rowdy. Entertainment if ever there was any!