Lots of cherry-picking going on…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070822/pl_bloomberg/adniimtacap8
I think this is further evidence of lurching from one policy justification to another in the hopes that we’re all just too stupid to notice the administration screwed up and can’t find a way to extricate itself from a bad sitution. So the reason we are still in Iraq is to protect the population? How does that serve our national security interest? If the analogy is to Vietnam, then withdrawal really didn’t and wouldn’t have a negative effect on our national security interest. Plus, does Iraq really have the capability of striking “the homeland” in any way other than the vague, non-specific threat of harboring terrorists who may decide to try to commit a terrorist act on US soil (lots of countries have this problem). Remember George, there are no WMDs. Now, there may be some reason to believe that Iran poses a threat to the homeland, but I’ve seen no evidence that upon withdrawal, Iran and Iraq would suddenly operate in cahoots with one another. They hate each other, remember (I know that’s asking a lot of George).
Just think of all the Vietnamese that followed us here after we pulled out of Vietnam (not Iraq). Iraqis will follow us here too. We need to fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here.
THE SURGE IS WORKING!
HERE HERE, Semper Fi
.
Just think of all the Vietnamese that followed us here after we pulled out of Iraq.
Does that mean a lot of families will be adopting Iraqi children now?
The justification to our national security is that if we withdraw preciptously and leave a failed state behind, then Iraq will quickly become another terrorist training ground, just like Afghanistan. The jihadists have already proclaimed part of Iraq as an Islamic state, and without a capable Iraqi security force, much of the Sunni part of Iraq could become part of a fundamentalist Islamic state. It is also of the utmost importance that we deny a victory to the jihadists, as they will proclaim an American withdrawal as a victory and use it to further their agenda of jihad. What I do think, though, is that American soldiers need to take a much less active role and start turning over security operations over to the Iraqis as much as possible, with the US troops being more a quick reaction force to save the Iraqis bacon if needed, instead of being constant targets for snipers and IEDs.
Spot
Spot,
Yep. I agree. Its too dangerous to leave right now. Too many unknowns.
I don’t like the Vietnam analogy, though: So we should have stayed in SE Asia until 1990??? And it totally would have been better? Don’t know about that … A mini example of where we are at in Iraq is Somalia. If we had stayed in Somalia to keep peace for a few years, that place would likely have been better off. Same reason NATO needs to stay a while in Afghanistan … There are never any guarantees, though.
Eventually, we will have to leave and we need to start figuring out how. We won’t be able to really control the situation, but maybe (I hope) we can help make its less awful.
I’m way over the discussions about how and why we got in: It was a mistake and that’s all there is to it. Getting in was a breeze. Getting out is about 100X more complicated.
Don’t disagree with ya. The only part of the Vietnam analogy that holds, I think, is that there was a fair amount of bloodletting after the communists took over, and I think Iraq will make that look like child’s play. But at least in Vietnam there was a government that could control their own borders and stabilize the situation…there is none of that with Iraq.
Spot
Iraq is nothing like Vietnam… if it was George Bush would have actually have to have seen combat duty while in the National Guard, which at last check has served many honorable tours of duty in Iraq. Unlike the “champagne squadron” Gee-dub didn’t bother to show up for…
*The only part of the Vietnam analogy that holds, I think, is that there was a fair amount of bloodletting after the communists took over, and I think Iraq will make that look like child’s play. *
I just don’t know about that. It seems more like the Sunnis will control parts of the country, Shia other parts. Much like how Yugoslavia fractured: Muslims in Kosovo, Serbs to Serbia, Catholics to Croatia … Ethnic cleansing is already taking place in Iraq on a massive scale, right under our noses. I just don’t see full-blown genocide on the horizon: Who would try to extinguish who? And why? And how exactly are we preventing a looming, much worse civil war? It seems more of police / security situation we need to help with.
Well, since the Sunnis don’t live where the oil is, I can imagine them trying to gain some control of at least some oil fields. I could also see the Shia militias deciding to take some revenge for all of the bombings since the US invasion, and also to take revenge on some of the Saddam era horrors. I think the Kurds would likely sit and watch, but I think the Sunnis and Shias would go at it tooth and nail.
Spot
you;re kidding… right?
The minute we go, Iran will take over and plunge the whole region into conflict.
Iran = Shiite
Saudi Arabia = Sunni
Kurds = everywhere
just add a couple of trillion barrels of oil, hundreds of thousands of lost arms and some loose nukes and you’ve got a fairly good reproduction of armeggedon.
Hooray for George!!!
I understand what you are saying and may even agree, but the problem is that the Vietnam analogy has nothing to do with that policy and it scares me to think we are lead by a man who thinks it does. To remain in Iraq (and sacrafice our young men and women), the administration needs to convince us why we need to stay in Iraq when countries like Sudan and regions like Chechnya are producing terrorists at an alarming pace. If that’s why we’re in Iraq, why aren’t we talking about invading Sudan? I’m convinced this is why Obama is talking about Pakistan (now there’s a quagmire). The truth is that the administration hasn’t convinced us that a military presence in a country is the best way to fight a terrorist threat. It seems we’re losing more men and women to sectarian motivated violence than to anti-Western motivated terrorist organizations.
The truth is that the administration hasn’t convinced us that a military presence in a country is the best way to fight a terrorist threat.
AmyCO,
I agree. I even take it to the next level. I think that President Bush missed an opportunity early on by not involving everyone in this country in some way ACTIVELY. Every person in this country should have had some role or make some sacrifice. When you look back at our history, the wars that we have won (or at least that history judges we have won) everyone had to play a part, not just soldiers and their families. Maybe we should have converted some car plants into tank plants again, or start mass producing bombers or something.
Bernie
I even take it to the next level. I think that President Bush missed an opportunity early on by not involving everyone in this country in some way ACTIVELY. Every person in this country should have had some role or make some sacrifice. When you look back at our history, the wars that we have won (or at least that history judges we have won) everyone had to play a part, not just soldiers and their families. Maybe we should have converted some car plants into tank plants again, or start mass producing bombers or something.
WW2 was the only time in the past 140 years we really did that. Of course it was about the only war we really had to become involved in to protect our country. IMHO.
If you read what he said, he didn’t say that the situations were the same. Bush said that the outcomes would be similar if we withdrew all the American soldiers…ie, lots of people would end being killed. And he is probably right. I don’t believe that Sudan or Chechnya are producing terrorists anymore than any other place. Now, the territories of Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan…that’s a mess, and not an easy strategic issue to deal with, but we must at some point deal with that situation in order to stabilize Afghanistan.
Spot
so why did we go to vietnam in the first place ? to save south vietnam from the north. it didn’t work. when we left they got killed some more. and that’s our fault. got it.
I thought the idiot boy king didn’t believe in ‘nation building’ This shit has gone on for so long now you’ve all forgotten the bullshit we were fed about this war from day one.
But one thing is for sure: it doesn’t make a damn difference what any of us think. Our so-called ‘leaders’ don’t care.