reality-based educator

So, do you beleive that the U.S. should pull out?
 

No, I don't believe the U.S. should pull out of Iraq. I believe a) the administration and the GOP leadership should stop eqauting the Iraq war with the overall war on terror - this simplistic categorization ia part of the reason why the administration failed to gauge what kind of insurgency it had on its hands back in 2003 and 2004 b) the administration and the GOP leadership should stop pulling meanlingless, cynical p.r. stunts - if retreat really isn't an option, then why not REALLY ask the American people to help win the war by accepting tax increases to pay for the war costs and reconstruction instead of adding it to the national debt and by instituting a draft so that more forces could be sent to Iraq.

What angers me is that on the one hand you have Republicans calling Dems defeatists and cowards while on the other hand those same Republicans don't have the political courage or the will to actually do what it would take to win the war.

What do you think, arch stanton? Are you happy with the way the war is currently being fought? Are you happy with the way the war effort has been handled?

And on another point, are you happy about the Iraq government offering amnesty to Iraqi insurgents who have killed Americans? I find that political move morally offensive. Yet some GOP senators defended that in the Senate this week. How do you feel about that?
 

I believe we should pull out, as do majority of the American people. Our military has achieved all the objectives that our President identified before this war. Saddam has been "removed," and there is now a "government" in place in Iraq.
 

Well, in the last exchange you and I had here, you indicated that the War was lost, and now you say we shouldn’t pull the troops out. So we should through good blood after bad? What gives?
 

Howard: Did you forget about the president saying that the Iraqi forces would need to be able to step up before we pulled out? If the presidents criteria for pulling out is the same as your own, I guess you will just have to wait a while.
 

I didn't express my thoughts on Iraq well before, arch stanton. Let me put it this way: the current Iraq war policy isn't working. If the administration really believes "retreat isn't an option," then it should put its money where its mouth is and add more troops and resources. Many war supporters like John McCain and Bill Kristol have been asking for just that. But if the administration is unwilling to add more resources/troops, then it should drawdown. In other words, don't be half-assed about it.

As for my own feelings about a drawdown, I am conflicted. I would rather not leave Iraq in the middle of ethnic/religious conflict that is threatening to bleed over the borders. I would rather not leave Iraq while the country continues to destabilize. But I have no confidence in the current administration to solve the problems. They have shown over and over again that we're only going to get more of the same from them on the Iraq policy. So my heart says drawdown, my head says can't drawdown. But ultimately, since the administration seems unwilling or unable to commit the troops and resources necessary to fix the problems, I don't see how the current policy is going to work.

Of course, this dilemma didn't have to be. If the administration had started with enough troops to begin with, had handled security right after the fall of Baghdad, had gotten reconstruction under way, ahd helped provide employment and food, water, electricity, the insurgency would never have gained the traction it did in 2003-2004. And I think that is something that should have been addressed during last week's House debate.
 

So, then the war is not lost?
 

Let me turn it around, arch stanton: what do you think? Is the war lost? Is it being lost? Is it still winnable? Do you agree with how it's being fought? Do you feel confident that down the road, after already spending 2501 American lives (and perhaps a few thousand more before all is said and done) and billions of dollars, that Iraq is going to turn into a stable democracy? Do you think that Iraq is better off today than under Saddam? Do you think the region is better off with Saddam gone and a triumphant Iran exerting undue influence in the region?
 

Let me turn it around further. Why don’t you name for me a more successful military action in the history of the United States and please provide for the viewing audience and me the criteria you would use to make such a judgment. And then we can get down to brass tacks with the issue. Is that fair?
 

Sure the invasion was successful. Quick and decisive. Got right to Baghdad with little problem and light casualties. If that's how you want to judge the war, then yup - most successful war ever.

But what about the occupation since? That has been one disaster after another.

The insurgency developed right away in the first few days of the occupation. The administration didn't have enough troops to handle security. Weapons dumps were looted. Reconstruction projects were sabotaged. And the administration made things worse by tearing apart the Iraqi army and setting loose thousands of disgruntled former military men into the country. The administration, flush with the hubris of the invasion success, ignored all of these problems and had the military spend their time looking for non-existent WMD's. When the WMD's didn't show up, the administration spent more time hitting out at war critic Joe Wilson in June and July of 2003 than they did trying to stop the burgeoning insurgency. And then came the attack on the United Nations contingent in Iraq, which essentially sent away most of the multinational aid out of iraq.

The insurgency, both Al Qaeda and homegrown Sunni, has gathered strength since. Each year, the chaos has grown worse in Iraq. Baghdad still remains basically unelectrified. Sectarian violence has greatly increased after the attack on The Golden Mosque. Thousands of Iraqis have died this year and it's only June. The U.S. government has stopped publicizing the training progress of the Iraqi forces because the progress has gotten worse, not better. A Wall Street Journal article from this weekend says Americans cannot trust the Iraqis with any secret intelligence because the forces are so riddled with insurgents. When Preznit Bush visited Iraq last week, al-Maliki couldn't be told Bush was coming until five minutes before he arrived because the U.S. was afraid somebody close to Maliki would tip off the insurgency about Bush's arrival.

Forget about comparing the Iraqi occupation to other occupations or wars. That's a straw man argument. Let's compare the Iraq occupation to what the administration told us it was going to be beforehand. We were told there was going to be a few weeks of fighting and a few months of occupation. General Tommy thought he could have the American forces down to 50,000 by the end of 2003. Here we are, into the fourth year of the war, and 135,000 troops remain in Iraq, reconstruction is stymied, the insurgencies are stronger than ever, sectarian violence is ingrained, and the Iraqi defense forces are nothing more than ethnic militias engaged in cleansing of their enemeies.

Doesn't sound much like victory to me. How many more years will the United States have to stay before the Iraqi forces are able to stand on their own? And once the U.S. leaves, how long will it be before the nation falls into total chaos and carnage? Months? Weeks? Days?
 

So, now that we agree that the major combat in Iraq which ended May 2 2003 is a great military victory, please provide me an example of an American military operation that had a more successful postwar outcome and provide the criteria you would use to make such a judgment.
 

arch stanton, let's move the conversation between us to the "Insurgency Mentality" post and continue there.
 

agreed. I will move my last post to that location.