Bush said today that the increase in violence in Iraq is due to the February (February 2006 !!!) bombing of a Shiite Mosque and that we are now in a “phase” of increased violence. He then added an insightful solution by saying we are going to stay until we win.
It is evident Bush has no clue as to what is going on over in Iraq. The Iranian leader spoke today about our presence being a catalyst for the problem and until we leave, Iraq will not have any peace.
It is clear to me that not only do we not have a plan to end the war but we seem to be the only country in the world that does not yet recognize that we are the problem and there is no solution until we leave.
Of course Bush added the tag line that we owe it to our children and grandchildren to win so once again, we will rely on emotional propaganda and leave the realistic solution to countries like Iran and Syria, who at least recognize the problem.
I just don’t understand why so many continue to believe in our naive approach when the realistic advice from countries who have lived through centuries of conflict continues to be ignored.
Let the Middle East solve the problems of the Middle East and we can focus on the problems we are better at, like why Brittany Spears is going out in public with Paris Hilton.
LOL. Maybe we as Americans should stick to the entertainment gossip and forget foreign policy. We can’t even figure out how to live here, why are we over in other countries to introduce our way of life?
What is your recommendation and basis for this recommendation?
I’ve been listening to the recent press regarding “both” sides of the issue, and it appears they are more similiar than different. Calling people names isn’t the solution…
That worked really well in Vietnam, except of course for the 2,000,000 who died in the wake of our leaving.
Good plan. I am guessing it is alright with you if Iran and a half dozen other Arab countries develop nuclear weapons too. After all, the alligator will likely eat us last, after Israel and most of Western Europe, so no need to worry. It will be someone else’s problem when our turn comes.
It is all the same ol shit no matter who is in the WH. Who cares? Politicians are all a bunch of corrupt b*stards and there is NOTHING we can do about it.
**What is your recommendation and basis for this recommendation? **
The same one it’s been all along. Withdraw our troops and get them out of the civil war. Anyone who denies that Iraq is in the middle of a civil war doesn’t really understand what it is.
The solution in Iraq has to fall on their own shoulders, it is after all, their country. We are part of the problem and are standing in the middle of something we have no power to stop. Let the parties involved work out their problems.
I laugh when I hear people say we can’t leave because it will cause so much death. What on earth has been happening for the last 3 years? If even Conservative estimates are right and 100,000 Iraqis have been killed, how much more can be lost if we leave?
I think we should just face the facts. We messed up, a lot of people on both sides were killed and let’s learn that we are not a country capable of nation building. We should have learned the lesson in Vietnam but we didn’t so hopefully we will moving forward.
Let’s bring our soldiers home so they can leave the futility of standing in the way of thousands of years of feuding between 2 religious groups we don’t understand. The Middle East is a place we have no business being.
I hear what you’re saying, but neither side is saying that is the solution. I hate to even bring up John Kerry (b/c I personally feel he’s the worst liberal candidate), but he mentioned a phased approach last weekend.
It’s easy to say “bring em home”, but that’s impossible and basically irresponsible right now.
The basic arguement at this point is over definitions regarding “phases”.
That said…I’ll ask the question again. Are you literally saying “bring em home now” or are you just simply venting frustration at the lack of tangible progress?
It’s easy to say “bring em home”, but that’s impossible and basically irresponsible right now.
I don’t quite understand why it’s impossible and irresponsible. All it takes is the will to do it. We did it in Saigon. I think it’s more irresponsible to let even one more American kid … er … soldier get blown apart by an IED because we lack the will to get them out of there. What good are they doing anyway? Certainly not keeping the peace. There is no peace. The Iraqui troops won’t fight. They stood there while six guys were torched the other day. Why is it impossible and irresponsible to go home?
quote /Good plan. I am guessing it is alright with you if Iran and a half dozen other Arab countries develop nuclear weapons too. After all, the alligator will likely eat us last, after Israel and most of Western Europe, so no need to worry. It will be someone else’s problem when our turn comes. /
I don’t see how us over there fighting and people dying is going to stop the development of nuclear weapons. The people who want to make WMD are going to do it somewhere, sometime, with or without us at war. We can not stop that. we are fighting a lost cause in a country that we have no business being in and trying to settle their problems. we have enough problems of our own.
**Are you literally saying “bring em home now” or are you just simply venting frustration at the lack of tangible progress? **
I actually agree with Bush on the idea that a timetable or a phased withdrawl is a bad idea. A phased withdrawl will just increase the risk for those left behind. If we can’t stop the civil war with the men we have, leaving half or so there will just make it more dangerous for them.
A timetable is also a bad idea as the insurgents will just wait us out and then proceed once we leave, so we are just delaying the inevitable.
I think opening up dialogue between Iran/Iraq/Syria and us is a good idea on a few fronts. First, it will be seen that the solution is a Middle East one, not one imposed by an occupying force. We can’t be legitimate negotiators as long as we hold the power.
Second, we may gain some benefit with Iran in the easing of tension over the nuclear situation.
We will not get anywhere if we continue to stick our head in the sand and refuse to even talk with Iran/Syria. We have to face the facts that they are the real powers in that region. It is not us and it never will be.
So, to answer your question, we should leave right away and open a dialog with Iran/Syrian/Iraq and make it clear that the solution lies with them.
I just don’t understand why so many continue to believe in our naive approach when the realistic advice from countries who have lived through centuries of conflict continues to be ignored.
For the same reasons we, as teenagers, didn’t listen to our parents advice … we thought we knew more than they did … only to discover later on that we were wrong … even then we may or may not admit we should have listened. =)
That worked really well in Vietnam, except of course for the 2,000,000 who died in the wake of our leaving.
And today Vietnam is our trading partner. A peaceful country in Asia. In fact, it is so nice in Vietnam that Bush decided he actually wanted to go there, even though he did everything possible not to when he had a chance to serve his country.
Besides, what is 2 million third world peasants like Iraqis? 200K-500K have died so far and no one seems to give a hoot. What’s another 1.5M?
Wow. I have heard comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, Iraq and WWII, Iraq and Palestine, but that’s the first time I’ve heard the debacle in Iraq compared to the American Revolution. I suppose Bush is playing Lafeyette in this ridiculous analogy. (Not, of course, King George.) Who, in your view, is the Iraqi counterpart to Washington? (Not to mention Jefferson, Madison, and the rest of their buddies.)
You might be the only person left who thinks that “victory” can be achieved can be achieved in Iraq, Art. I think everyone else- neocons included- have moved on to an attempt to manage and mitigate the failure.
As far as that goes, I heard Obama’s speech in Chicago the other day, and his plan (yes, he actually had a proposal for a plan, not just whiny criticism. Refreshing.), was the best I’ve heard so far. Of course, he prefaced the speech with the observation that there really are no *good *options available to us, and he’s right about that.
I didn’t compare the conflicts. I compared the attitudes.
One has the attitude of a loser, despite every comfort and advantage. The other has the attitude of a winner, despite unbearable hardship. The loser loses, and the winner wins, because that is what winners and losers do.
Frankly, and I don’t mean this from a particularly partisan perspective, the country and the war effort would both benefit greatly if Bush and Cheney resigned and handed things over to a new leader, regardless of the party. Beyond clearly not having the vision to run this war effectively, Bush has clearly lost the clout to make any significant and, more importantly, difficult decisions that could turn this war around. Let’s say McCain is right and that we need steep increases in troop levels. Would Bush have the political standing to double our troops? I don’t think so. But would McCain, or some other competent leader? I think so. At this point, our two existing options – continuing to get our asses kicked by Iran’s proxies, al qaeda, and now apparently Hezbollah or losing simply by exiting – are shitty options that will harm the country on many levels. But the alternative, using overwhelming force and making serious social sacrifices (what we should have done 3 years ago) are not things that Bush can pull off now. Of course, if Bush leaves, we just get Cheney, so that is not a great option. But sheesh, it’s too bad that we can’t have a vote of no confidence and an early election. I am not sure that anything will be salvaged after another two years of this lame duck.
Not meant combatively: Are we comparing inspiration or strategies for success? They are neither mutually exclusive nor the same thing.
Given that you believe leaving Vietnam when we did was a mistake, and that you feel leaving Iraq is a mistake, what strategies (either those we are practicing now, or different one’s) do you specifically recommend?
On a related note, does anyone know of a neutral comparison of Vietnam that breaks down the validity of arguments that we had to get out and that we had actually won the “war” but didn’t have the balls to finish it off? The two sides seem so divergent on this one I don’t know who is right. I’m not old enough to have lived the experience, so I have no first-hand view/bias. One side says it was a failure, one side says we were winning, I have no clue on the subject.