Yes, the rationale for going into Iraq was flawed. The former regime was not and never would have been friendly to Islamic fundamentalism. Yes, we have allowed things in Afghanistan to slip because of our investment in and attention to Iraq. And, I know first hand that the flow of information regarding military and of course CIA operations in Iraq is limited. But I wonder, considering how many "anti war" folks there are, and considering the Dems stated policy of getting out of Iraq, how many folks realize that we have created a crucible in Iraq, that is drawing Islamic fundamentalist "warriors" from far and wide, into the combat operations theater, and away from civilian targets in the west. We are concentrating the enemy and bringing them into contact with forces trained to deal with them. We are dealing with them much more efficiently than most Americans know, or will ever know, because of operational security concerns, given the fact that we have other enemies in this world trying to figure out our methods and tactics. If we remove our forces from Iraq / Afghanistan, you will very likely, and very quickly, see many more attacks against civilian targets in Europe and potentially in the US.
Things could get better and better, and everything seems to be headed that way. To change tactics at this time and risk it going to Iran is fool hardy.
Finally, I know this is old hat, but I am not willing to concede that we should not have gone in. You do something on the basis of what you know at the time.
On Dec. 16, 1998, when Clinton controlled the White House (and intellegence services) John Kerry, said "Americans really need to understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. ... Saddam has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction." –
Kerry was saying that based on best available intelligence. Considering Saddam's past, his obligations under the first war's treaty, and the lessons of 9-11, it was understandable that someone would want to take him out.
Since the surge began, more than 1,000 American troops have died, and despite the improved security situation, the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to lead the Iraqi people and to reach the genuine political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge. Our troops have heroically helped reduce civilian casualties in Iraq to early 2006 levels. It is also a consequence of the decision of many Sunnis to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, and a lull in Shia militia activity. But the absence of genuine political accommodation in Iraq is a direct result of President Bush’s failure to hold the Iraqi government accountable.
As Army Chief of Staff General George Casey said in March, “Today’s Army is out of balance. The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies.”
Resurgent Al Qaeda in Afghanistan: The decision to invade Iraq diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, making it harder for us to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and others involved in the 9/11 attacks. Nearly seven years later, the Taliban has reemerged in southern Afghanistan while Al Qaeda has used the space provided by the Iraq war to regroup, train and plan for another attack on the United States. 2007 was the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan, producing unacceptable strategic risks.
A New Strategy Needed: The Iraq war has lasted longer than World War I, World War II, $2.7 trillion on this war and its aftermath, yet we are less safe around the globe and more divided at home. American troops have found the right tactics to contain the violence in Iraq, but we still have the wrong strategy to press Iraqis to take responsibility at home, and restore America’s security and standing in the world.
A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal
Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.
Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.
There is no military solution to Iraq’s political differences, but the Bush Administration’s blank check approach has failed to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future or to substantially spend their oil revenues on their own reconstruction.
A phased withdrawal will encourage Iraqis to take the lead in securing their own country and making political compromises, while the responsible pace of redeployment called for by the Obama-Biden plan offers more than enough time for Iraqi leaders to get their own house in order.
Surging Diplomacy
This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors—including Iran and Syria, as suggested by the bi-partisan The Iraq Study Group Report. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction and development.
He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find sanctuary. Obama and Biden will also work with Iraqi authorities and the international community to hold the perpetrators of potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide accountable. They will reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq.
The Status-of-Forces-Agreement
should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval—yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
Barack Obama’s Record
Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against the war. He said the war would lead to “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences.” In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation to responsibly end the war in Iraq, with a phased withdrawal of troops engaged in combat operations
NY times July 08
We have created a fish barrel of sorts. Damn near a shooting gallery. Not so good maybe for some Iraqi people, but I haven’t seen a recent poll of them. Do most want us to leave? I’m sure, yes. Do most want us to leave tomorrow? I don’t know, but I doubt it. If we left tomorrow would most want us to come back next week? I bet so. If elected, it looks like BHO is going to try to find out. One can only hope that this superior intellect his supporters thinks he has (I think it is more a high propensity to learn quickly than it is wisdom) will allow him to change his mind after he gets the ‘real’ security briefing. Are we creating more bad guys than there would otherwise have been? Maybe. I think it’s just accelerating the process that would have taken place anyway. I do think that we probably aren’t using enough “soft power”. Maybe BHO will increase that effectively, but most likely it will be at the expense of “hard power”.
BTW, can you tell us the secret weapon being used that really made the surge successful, that Bob Woodward keeps talking about? LOL j/k. They never should have told that guy, although he did keep secret the identity of Deep Throat.
Let's stop this nonsense once and for all: the surge was not a success, it was an overwhelming failure. Improving security in Baghdad was only one of 18 objectives that Bush established as a measure of success for the surge. The military component was a success but the US achieved only three of the 18 objectives, which included political and economic goals as well. According the objectives that George W. Bush laid out, the surge was almost a complete failure.
Powell a 4 star general would never support someone who didnt have all the deals. His analysis is correct 100%. I doubt Obama with all his superior intellect could come up with that shit.
Thats his great strength; He listens to people.
The sole purpose for the invasion of Iraq was to further expand US capitalist imperialism. Iraq was an easy target both politically and militarily. Sadam had few allies and a weak military. The war is going quite well from a capitalist point of view. The US now has a viable base in the Mideast.
Your posts addressed two different points:
A- an expansion of capitalist imperialism and
B- a viable military base
First, the US had a strategical base in the Middle East prior to our over throwing Sadam- (*we actually put him in office) so overthrowing him wasn't a political move to create an American foothold in the region.... thus the invalidation of your B point
We already had a formal agreement in place with the Island of Bahrain as well as an agreement with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Kingdom of Kuwait. Additionally, we maintain a strategical alliance with Israel in which US fighters are kept maintained and on the ground fueled- Not to mention Lebanon and our alliance with the Airwing present in that country. -Please re-check your military facts, the US has been in the Middle Eastfor decades, Iraq didn't afford us a presence there, we were there before we invaded to overthrow Sadam.
Next your comment on expansion of Capitalist Imperialism-
We didn't need Iraq to ......"Expand capitalist imperialism...." if anything Iraq was a far cry from expanding our imperialism. If the motive was only for a capitalist opportunity then we would have merely seized the oil fields and controlled the oil flow- We in fact have built hospitals, schools, community infrastructure and brought a sense of security that is confident enough for average citizens to return to the streets and help contribute to a free economic society. All of these areas are a far cry from Imperialism- sorry but while I agree we need a better plan and more precise agreed upon goals of how we are re-building this country it has been anything but an attempt at the expansion of Capitalist Imperialism. -however, I understand how easy it is to confuse the two since so many are trying to pass off socialism these days for true capitalism.
Please research your statement- ...."the US now has a viable base in the Middle East".....- we have been in the middle East for several decades- it just wasn't on CNN everyday with a body count.
is or will be a success, or a good idea. I am merely observing from my professional point of view that an apparently un-noticed benefit of being there is that we have focused our conflict with Islamic terrorism in Iraq and drawn hostile forces away from civilian targets. This suggests to me that it would be foolish to withdraw our forces their based on the opinions of those who do not have or do not want complete knowledge of the consequences. My view would be to continue to fight our conflict with terror in Iraq until our politicians wise up to the consequences of failed and often disastrous foreign policies which have contributed to the rise of terrorism and focused the US as its target. The ultimate solution, if indeed there is one, to the problem of terrorism will be political. But in the meantime, I'd rather be confronting terrorists in Iraq than to have those I care about, but who are untrained and unequipped, confronting them domestically.
that don't have their heads buried or minds frozen so as to block out reality.
Ultimately all wars and conflicts have a political solution. Well at least those fought in the last several hundred years; where there wasn't a TOTAL scorched earth, kill everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) in sight strategy.
Additionally, leaving Iraq without another ..."target" ... in place will create a vacuum of power especially among uneducated poverty stricken citizens.
While I too disagree with our continued efforts to build an infrastructure that the general public of the region do not want- leaving without a plan would be detrimental to the security and serenity of life on our soil.
I've never advocated just destroying an entire countries in place governing body- which is what we did. I think ...as you have stated that Iraq has been a lightening rod for fanatic's who hate America- and to be honest I would rather these groups be fighting on the streets of Iraq than on our playgrounds and in our financial districts.
I don't mind shopping among men carrying AK's and walking through metal detectors every time I exit or enter a building (*that is what I do now because I have a home in the middle East*) however, my stomach has a problem imagining my 8 year old nephew trying to play softball under the same conditions. So let the military fight it on foreign soil, keep it off of and out of America. Just my thoughts
"So let the military fight it on foreign soil, keep it off of and out of America" >>> That is naive & absurd. One of the motivations of the 911 hijackers was precisely the American involvement in Muslim countries.
"Fight them over there" all you want. Pissed off people are resourceful in hitting back.
thus my point that our foreign policy decisions have played a role in fostering terrorism. Terrorism, as ugly as it may be, is only low tech warfare fought by groups who do not have the resources to field an army or the imprimatur of a recognized national state behind them. We committed "terrorism" under the auspices of the OSS during world war II by aiding the French Resistance. Political solutions will need to address the causes of terrorism.