The Case for Leaving Iraq
Tweet
As I write this a news report is coming in that a roadside bomb has killed 10 marines in Fallujah. Needless to say, this bears a lot more resemblance to the assessment of the war offered by John Murtha and numerous other observers than it does the propagandized whitewash offered by Joe Lieberman, George Bush, and the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.
So, why are we in Iraq? A simple question, but depending on when you ask and what the President’s approval ratings are, you get a different answer. The main reason we are there is that the Republicans presented a case that said Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda and that Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. That is why the invasion had support, not because we as a nation suddenly decided that we wanted to give the people of Iraq freedom. Like every other nation since the dawn of man, it has always been about the preservation of our security.
But now, after the Iraq-Al Qaeda ties have been disproven (well, for all but the John Birch Society wing of the right who will believe anything) and no weapons of mass destruction have been found — why are we in Iraq? The claim is that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror and that we must help build a fully functioning western democracy there, even if it takes thousands of American lives to do it. Let’s just call that what it is: crazy.
Iraq is a hotbed of terror activity because it is currently occupied by American soldiers. Invading Iraq allowed for Al Qaeda to regroup after we had them on the run in Afghanistan, and now the global terror network has become more compartmentalized – with individual cells even less beholden to central command than in the past. So the question of our massive engagement in Iraq boils down to whether we want to stay and make it easy to kill Americans or whether we should redeploy our forces across the world and actually kill the terrorists before they kill us.
There’s an odd suspension of disbelief required to buy the Republican case for sticking it out. Quite literally it requires everything from here on out to go perfectly, when the short history of our involvement in this debacle has shown us that has as much a likelihood of happening as Dick Cheney sprouting fairy wings.
In order to fight the global war on terrorism, it would be advisable that we remove the bulk of our force from babysitting the burgeoning Islamic republic (see Iran) that is growing in Iraq (and getting killed in the process), and put our military back to work at the job September 11th foisted on them: destroying the terrorist scum around the world who seek to destroy us and our allies.
88 Responses to “The Case for Leaving Iraq”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Does it ever occur to you that whats good news for the terrorists also is trumpeted as good news for you and the left politically. For differing reasons, to be sure, but nevertheless, as good news. After all, it , in your mind, reflects badly upon Bush. And whatever does that, is good. Right? Don’t you want to get off that ugly treadmill? I mean, I assume you really don’t want the Ts to win, but everytime they strike, you crow. Think about it.
And it isn’t ‘why are we in Iraq’. Democrats and Republicans voted for us to go to war for honorable reasons. More important is: since WE ARE there (that ‘reality’ thing), what should we do? Now I just heard prominent Democrats say that they weren’t running from bombs and terrorist acts. Good. Lets neither run from them nor declare them as our (the left’s) political victories.
Dugger
On NPR this morning, retired Gen. William Odom said basically the same thing, that our leaving would mean the Iraqis would turn against al Qeada — none of the factions there need the group once we’re gone. And the chaos we would leave is the chaos the place is already seeing. Will he, nil he, the future of Iraq is chaos. Our grand vision of an enlightened, Western-style secular democracy is a chimera, an opium dream, a pie-in-the-sky illusion.
Listen to it at npr.org — it was very refreshing to hear the truth.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5035613
Ed Drone
It’s a good thing you weren’t around on D-Day: 53,000 Dead! Quagmire!!!!
BD,
A large segment of the left was yelling “quagmire” during the US Army’s 2 day rest during the snadstorm in the first week of the war. technically, we were at war with Iraq – due to their violations of the cease-fire agreements of 1991. We were also at war with their “allies”. (Read the Clinton Justice Dept. idictment of OBL, directly linking Iraq and OBL; or Clarke’s comments that OBL would “boogie to Baghdad” if he were pressed in Afghanistan)
Progress against the “insurgency” is measured in more than just the number of Marines they can kill (And btw, that number has been decreasing). The “insurgency” has less and less support among Iraqis – a crucial measure of our success; the Kurds don’t support it, the Shia don;t support it, and a large number of Sunnis don’t support it. So numerically, the “insurgency” is supported by 10-15% of the Iraq population. That is progress. Assuming the elections go well in two weeks, that support could be even lower.
More importantly, Oliver’s and the Left’s point that we need to withdraw because they are killing our troops is an inane one at best. Remember that our abrupt withdrawal from Somalia, Beirutt were cited by OBL as displays of American weakness (“the strong horse versus the weak horse”) – weakness that emboldened the terrorists into attacking us. Withdrawal from Iraq now would doom not just Iraq but the entire Middle East. Any allies that we had there would no longer trust us (like the Kurds and Shia after 1991 debacle), and our influence in this crucial area would be reduced to zero. We would have zero leverage against Iran, or against fundamentalists in Pakistan. In short, withdrawing a la Murtha plan would destroy US national security and credibility. Oftentimes it seems that this is what the far-Left wants, but it is certainly not what the US popultaion wants.
Dugger dribbles:
I don’t know if I would consider being duped by misinformation about every aspect of the situation in Iraq (WMD, forged documents, and the ‘fixing’ of data around the invasion strategy, 911/Sadam etc.) is what you would call “going to war for honorable reasons”. But then again I am not a republican stooge.
How about gettin the fuck out? You don’t have any legitimate reasons for being there in the first place since you entered into the conflict on blatantly false pretenses. Sure the people who voted for invasion were fed a bill of goods and believed at the time that it was a good idea, but that reality thing tells us that they were fooled by the asshats from PNAC.
Cheers,
Naked Ape
Farris,
While the logic is correct, the numbers are not. US dead on D-Day were around 6000, not 53,000
The logic isn’t correct, either. The invasion of Normandy is contextually different than the occupation of Iraq.
If Oliver had been yelling “Quagmire!” shortly after the invasion of Iraq, and we had already been at war with Iraq or its allies (a mostly nonexistent group that also did not include al-Qaida), then Farris could make the cheap comparison that Farris is making.
It’s not the number, strictly, it’s the relative damage. If three years later, the insurgents–or whatever Rummy currently wishes them to be called–are finding ways to kill as many of our Marines per month as they were able to a year or so ago, how can we say we’re making progress against the insurgency?
Oliver everything in your statement is completely true. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete moron. Bush is the President. He is the one who put our troops in Iraq. He is the one who screwed up. He is the one who for over 2 years refuses to admit he made a big mistake. He could have said 2 years ago it was a mistake to be there, and bring the troops back here. But instead over 2000 men and women are dead because he refused to admit he made a mistake. How many more must die because we have a President who does not want to be called a flip-flopper.
I do not feel one bit safer because of the troops being in Iraq. I would feel a lot safer if the troops were here in the US protecting our borders and nuclear power plants and water supplies and shopping malls. This is where every active duty military personnel should be.
Good job Oliver. Perhaps someone can explain to me what, exactly, is our plan in Iraq? No pablum about democracy and freedom on the march, terrists, etc. please.
Simply, what strategic and tactical goals have to be met for us declare victory, and how are we going about achieving those goals. It has been three years, after all. What, and more importanly, when is the endgame.
While the logic is correct
I’d disagree. There is a fundamental difference between a war of choice and a war of necessity. WWII was a fight for our survival and could have been fought to the last man standing in America. Iraq is a war of choice, not necessary to our survival but to advance a theory cherished by neo-cons, so morally there is a distinction to be made between a soldier dying on D-Day and in Iraq. Indeed, Iraq, as Oliver points out here, is distracting us from the war of necessity we should be fighting, the global war on terror.
Dugger,
Bush will succeed or fail whether you or I worship him or hate him. You and your straw man projection company are once again blaming everyone but those who sold war as the “last resort” while planning for a quick invasion before inspectors could verify that Saddam had indeed disarmed.
By the way, can you tell me how many Democratic Senators and House members voted in favor of giving Bush the option of using military action in Iraq?
How many opposed it?
So is pretending that anyone said that.
Let’s pretend for a minute that the topic is, say, immigration reform rather than Iraq, and let’s pretend the news article is about some crime committed by an illegal immigrant. In that situation, a left-winger might ask you, Dugger:
Do you see any problems with that argument? If so, can you explain how it is different from your argument re: Oliver’s position on the war?
A large segment of the left was yelling quagmire during the US Army s 2 day rest during the snadstorm in the first week of the war.
Prove this assertion, please. I have no recollection of this, but that could simply be an inability to recollect. As I recall, most of the protesting was done before the war started, but after it started, all the left could do was shut up and hope for the best. Show me (a) anti-war lefties using the term “quagmire” or similar during the sandstorm, and (b) quantify “large segment.”
Murtha’s plan wasn’t for immediate withdrawal, which I agree would be disastrous. In fact, outside of the truly loony sections of the left, the people who were advocating for immediate withdrawal were House Republicans. (Yes, I’m aware it was a “trap” vote. Take note that Murtha wasn’t dumb enough to fall for such a cheap and transparent ploy.)
The idea that if our Iraq adventure fails, so fails the “entire Middle East” is alarmist at best, arrogant at worst. There were advocates for democracy in the Middle East before we invaded Iraq and there will be advocates after we leave Iraq whether or not we leave in victory or in defeat. It is arguable that the invasion undercut the progress being made by Iran’s progressive movements, by allowing Islamic hardliners to claim that yes, indeed, America is on a crusade to destroy Islam and take over the oil (much in the same way that some of America’s fundamentalist preachers claim that all Muslims want is to destroy Christianity and freedom).
And as for trust–forget about it. There is no “trust” here. Abu Ghraib, for starters, put paid to trust. The best we can and should expect from the Iraqis and the rest of the Middle East at this point is “tolerance.”
No, it validates Murtha’s assertion that:
It’s pretty easy to score rhetorical points when you misrepresent what the other side is saying.
Sorry Quaker. There’s no dispute as to who the target is. Lieberman said progress was being made. Murtha has said the war is “unwinnable.”
What the hell do you think happens if we follow Oliver’s ‘plan’ of distributing our troops around the world? What, they won’t be targets?
Enough so that the DEMOCRATIC-CONTROLLED Senate passed the bill.
Perhaps because its easier to kill an Iraqi civilian or untrained Iraqi military person than a well trained American soldier? Man, you guys are dumb.
Murtha’s assertion that “Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency.” is entirely incorrect. The number of Iraqi civilians and Iraq police killed by “insurgents” is far higher than the number of US troops.
See Brookings report. (last month US troops – 87, Iraq Military and Police – 176, Iraqi civilians – between 386 and 676).
It s pretty easy to score rhetorical points when you misrepresent the facts.
As I write this a news report is coming in that a roadside bomb has killed 10 marines in Fallujah. Needless to say, this bears a lot more resemblance to the assessment of the war offered by John Murtha and numerous other observers than it does the propagandized whitewash offered by Joe Lieberman, George Bush, and the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.
Translation: What I believe is true. Anybody who says otherwise is engaging in propaganda.
Once again, you make this strange connection that the death of a soldier is the equivalent of losing. You still haven’t adequately explained that strange logic. 10 Marines are unfortunately killed and suddenly that validates Murtha’s conclusion that we can’t win?
But now, after the Iraq-Al Qaeda ties have been disproven (well, for all but the John Birch Society wing of the right who will believe anything) and no weapons of mass destruction have been found why are we in Iraq?
Repeating something a trillion times doens’t make it true. And I guess Bill Clinton is a member of the John Birch society since he named Saddam in a 1998 indictment against Osama Bin Laden.
So the question of our massive engagement in Iraq boils down to whether we want to stay and make it easy to kill Americans or whether we should redeploy our forces across the world and actually kill the terrorists before they kill us.
More pretzel logic. Fighting them in one area, and keeping them away from the United States (they can’t kill “us” if they’re not here) is no good. But haphazardly spreading them all around the world would be better. Of course, we hear nothing from Oliver on the ramifications of just bringing troops into countries all over the world to go at with Al Qaeda cells. We know there are cells in Spain. Is the 82nd airborne just supposed to drop on by? Also, in Willis World, no soldiers can be killed. Otherwise, we’d be losing.
I would feel a lot safer if the troops were here in the US protecting our borders and nuclear power plants and water supplies and shopping malls. This is where every active duty military personnel should be.
Oh yeah. I’m sure liberals would just love having troops armed with M-16′s walking around the food court. If Bush allowed that, they’d be yelping “POLICE STATE!!” inside of 5 mins.
10 Marines are unfortunately killed and suddenly that validates Murtha s conclusion that we can t win?
No, 10 Marines are killed in order to build an islamic republic in Iraq. Not defending America and its allies, not killing terrorists, but in the process of building a nation while terrorists plot to destroy our own.
Fighting them in one area
They aren’t in one area. They’re all over the world. They’re not dumb, and they aren’t like a traditional army with a “front”.
Oh and claiming that only our troops are targets is a misrepresentation. Look up the numbers and you’ll see that many more Iraqi civilians and Iraqi police and military have died than US troops.
No he didn’t. Follow the link to the Congressman’s website. Show us where he said anything even close. I’ll even give you a head start: go to the very end of his statement. He said:
That’s quite a bit different, isn’t it?
Like I said, it’s easy to win if you get to decide what the other side says.
Murtha has said the war is unwinnable.
No he didn t.
From his website:
“I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won militarily. “
Jay C,
Oh and claiming that only our troops are targets is a misrepresentation. Look up the numbers and you ll see that many more Iraqi civilians and Iraqi police and military have died than US troops.
Somehow that makes it better?
Jesus.
The media was saying “quagmire” as soon as the sandstorm hit and Us troops stopped in their advance on Baghdad.
Murtha s plan wasn t for immediate withdrawal
You sure?
“My plan calls:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.” http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html
That would be the same as immediate withdrawal.
The idea if Iraq fail so does the ME, is neither alarmist nor arrogant. Undoubtedly there were advocates of democracy in the ME – mostly in jail. The liberation of Iraq helped push the issue of democratizaion to the forefront in such a way that it could not be ignored. If we leave in defeat the idea of democratization would be discredited. There would also be no one there to push the idea.
The existence of “progressive movements” or “moderates” in teh Iranian government is a myth. Rafsanjani’s statements are not significantly different from Ahmedinijad’s. The real control rested and continues to rest with the non-progressive, fundamentalist mullahs.
And as for trust, I am not speaking of it in the same warm and fuzzy way that you are. The Arab world now trusts that we will do what we say we will do – something that was lost in the post-Gulf War debacle. If we leave now, it will go back to that.
You mean like when we say we don t torture except when we do?
I m sure you have proof of that.
There’s a certain court-martialed PFC smiling in the photographs. Oh, but I forget. That wasn’t “torture,” that was just…something else.
If we don’t torture, I’m sure Dick Cheney will be the first to champion the bill making absolutely clear that we won’t torture.
Or, y’know, not.
The media was saying quagmire as soon as the sandstorm hit and Us troops stopped in their advance on Baghdad.
“The media,” huh? Thanks for being so specific.
You didn’t have to reply immediately, you know. I was willing to wait while you researched the time period and pointed me to actual instances of the word or even the concept of “quagmire” being spewed by “a large segment of the left,” and I’ll wait while you try and find it from “the media.” Show it to me and I’ll admit I was wrong. That’s reasonable, isn’t it?
As for “what we say, we do,” that’s a rather warm and fuzzy perception all on its own. If I give you a broken Cuisinart and say “I’ve handed you a Cuisinart,” then yes, you should be able to trust that I did what I said. It won’t make soup, but hey, I told you I was giving you a Cuisinart.
You mean like when we say we don t torture except when we do?
I’m sure you have proof of that.
And once again, you are missing the point. We said we would remove Saddam, and he is gone. We said we would hand over sovereignty, and we did. We said we would set up elections, and we did.
Quaker, yes he did.
Perhaps because its easier to kill an Iraqi civilian or untrained Iraqi military person than a well trained American soldier? Man, you guys are dumb.
Uh, moron? The contention is that US soldiers are the targets. Again, Quaker is trying to justify your comparison between Murtha and Lieberman. I said it was because Murtha said the war was unwinnable while Lieberman says progress is being made. Quaker shoots back that it had to do with what Murtha said about the violence ongoing because our troops had become the target. Pay freaking attention to you write people.
Murtha s plan wasn t for immediate withdrawal, which I agree would be disastrous.
Is that so? Murtha:
My plan calls:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
I guess it depends on what the definition of ‘immediately’ means.
Not defending America and its allies, not killing terrorists, but in the process of building a nation while terrorists plot to destroy our own.
Right. And those dirtbags our military men and women are killing are what exactly? Jewel thieves? Cripes, it would be hard to type something more dumb.
They re not dumb, and they aren t like a traditional army with a front .
Oh, but you’re advocating we use our traditional armies to fight them all over the globe. You’re not making ANY sense.
Somehow that makes it better?
I swear curmudgeon, trying to make somebody like you understand a point is like trying to do the same with a deaf and blind infant with Down’s syndrome. I won’t even respond to such idiocy.
The Arab world now trusts that we will do what we say we will do
You mean like when we say we don’t torture except when we do?
It wasn t torture stupid.
As brilliant and cutting as this retort is, I would argue that the definition of whatever happened at Abu Ghraib will ultimately rest with the people who were naked with bags over their heads.
That is to say, if any one of them says that the experience was “torture,” then it will be considered, for all intents and purposes, torture.
At least, that’s how the story will survive in the Arab street. I doubt that any Arab who saw those photos will ever say “It was a humiliating experience that was blown out of proportion by America’s liberal media.”
To borrow a much-overused phrase, this sort of action “emboldens the terrorists”–not to attack, but to recruit.
buma,
For the death of the Marines, I blame those who killed them and fervently hope each and every killer is rendered unable to ever kill again by same said Marines. As for who lead us into war, IMO its Bush. AS to who supported him and endorsed the war and without whom the war would have been impossible: Republicans and Democrats. That will be true forever and no amount of ranting and queasy intellectual side-stepping will render it otherwise.
And what straw man company? I commented on the deplorable tendency of the left to crow when the terrorists kill somebody – as if it is a polticial victory for them. I figure if my politics lead me to run and post a political zinger when Marines die, I done something wrong. But then you guys handled the Wellstone funeral, didn’t you?
Cybishop,
Your example is wrong in many ways. It was Marines who were killed in the line of duty, serving you and I. For your example to be correct, I would have had to go out and post publicly about how this proves John Kerry or Hillary Clinton made this happen. And it is not Oliver’s position on the war, which seems to have (ahem) changed since Kerry went away, that is at issue, but rather the tendency of his and the left’s to publicly seize on every terrorist ‘victory’ as if it is an endorsement of their political position. That would make me uneasy. Kind of like: Who do I hate more: terrorists or Bush?
Dugger
Leftover remnants of the Iraqi army, newly radicalized insurgents. The terrorists that are the true threat are busy plotting to attack our cities.
Right. The ‘new’ terrorists sprung up like mushrooms while the ‘real’ terrorists do other work. You’ve lost your mind dude.
And Quaker, give me a break! You’re smarter than that so don’t play Jadegold with me ok? It was a calculated statement because Murtha knew the Pentagon already made clear they weren’t going to increase troops levels. Nothing changed. Therefore, Murtha said the war was unwinnable. So deal with it.
So we’ve got an 18-month-old remark that doesn’t say what you said it does, and that proves your point? Is that the “assessment” you believe OW was talking about in his original post. He’s close by. We could ask him.
I think we can move on. Let’s look at this part of Jay’s original post:
I’ll cut you a little slack on this one, Jay. The indictment didn’t “name Saddam,” but it did mention Iraq, so we’ll call it good.
The 1998 indictment said:
That’s pretty weak stuff as a pretext for invasion, isn’t it? I mean we’ve got the government of Sudan and Iran as well as Hezbollah actively participating with al Qaeda while Iraq agrees not to mess in their business.
But as long as you’re willing to pass off any fleeting agreement as “ties between Saddam and al Qaeda,” you’ve got no problem.
The Washington Times went on to say:
Uh-oh. If you want to push those “ties” between al Qaeda and Saddam, you’re going to have to accept that the “aspirin factory” was more than it seemed.
Which way you goin’, Jay?
And just exactly how many car bombs have they set off in Kansas and New Hampshire?
Oh so now it’s torture just because somebody says it is? I find it to be torture to read so many of the stupid things people have said in this thread. But I sincerely doubt you, Oliver, and Naked Ape are going to be indicted any time soon.
Still struggling to save face on your initial misrepresentation, Jay? You won’t get there by piling one on top of another.
You provided a link to this:
Hmm. Only the one word is in quotes. What do you suppose that means? Here’s the context that Jay forgot:
As soon as you’re done trying to defend this falsehood, we’ll move on and deal with some others.
And those dirtbags our military men and women are killing are what exactly?
Leftover remnants of the Iraqi army, newly radicalized insurgents. The terrorists that are the true threat are busy plotting to attack our cities. But keep pretending, Jay, those of us who walk past terror targets every day are required to think otherwise.
There s a certain court-martialed PFC smiling in the photographs. Oh, but I forget. That wasn t torture, that was just& something else.
It wasn’t torture stupid.
Breaking a man’s leg with a baseball bat?
It’s not torture, stupid.
Asphyxiation?
“It’s not torture, stupid.”
Beating a man’s legs until they’re pulp?
“It’s not torture, stupid.”
Murtha: To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To which the chickenhawk Jay C dribbled:
I guess it depends on what the definition of immediately means.
One of the problems with chickenhawks–like Jay–is they have no concept of what various military terms mean.
Deployment or redeployment is a process; often, deployment can take months or, in extreme cases, years.
In any case, redeployment doesn’t mean dropping everything and sprinting for the border. It does mean immediately to begin a process of drawing down and/or repositioning forces.
……I would feel a lot safer if the troops were here in the US protecting our borders and nuclear power plants and water supplies and shopping malls. This is where every active duty military personnel should be……
You probably got your wish: Republican Congressman Ron Paul recently appeared on nationally syndicated radio and again reiterated his deep concern that foreign troops are mobilizing outside and inside America to be used as assets in a martial law takeover by the Bush administration.
“It’s a horrible precedent and it’s all part of the NAFTA scheme and globalization and world government.”
And on another note regarding our compassionate killing in Iraq:
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Bush_3.htm
“….Interviews and documents obtained by Insight show that Charles Edward Bernier, a 30-year retired officer with the United States Information Service once known as the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) and former U.S. embassy spokesman in 10 Arab countries in the 1980s and 90s, played a key role in trying to orchestrate an anti-war Bush lies movement among his former colleagues in the State Department and CIA …
……..said he was directed in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion until May 2003, to help generate positive stories for news organizations covering military operations. He was also tasked with advising U.S. commanders on cultural matters and outreach to the Muslim population as Operation Iraqi Freedom unfolded….”
I was disgusted, it was denigrating, Mr. Bernier said of the direction he received from younger superiors with zero background in the region.
Good explanation Jadegold. That is the same way that I see it. Immediately means start re-deploying now, but it could take years to re-deploy that many troops.
Murtha also said we should re-deploy to a safe area nearby so that we could go back in quickly if needed.
Jadegold,
I’m sure Jay C would learn these terms if he could just muster up the courage to actually, you know, serve in the war he slobbers over so much. Come on Jay, “redeploy” that doughy bod of yours!
Until then I’m sure he’ll be content parsing through his Dad’s old dog-eared Soldier of Fortune magazines while he cozies up under his limited-edition G.I. Joe camouflage comforter. Maybe he’ll even get risky, and read to the light of the flashlight!!
Jadegold: Stop “telling” people what military terms really mean, and start using your head for something besides a hatrack.
Here are the words from John “Sgt. Fury” Murtha’s home page:
What does “from” in “re-deployment from Iraq” mean? Inside of Iraq or outside of Iraq?
What does “accomplished” mean in military lingo? Something besides completed?
So, yeah, he meant months, OK — six months!
Zbigniew Brzezinski pretty well encapsulates my thinking on Iraq. I don’t necessarily think we need to “bite the bullet” next year, but I do think it will happen soon. Taken from an interview with the American Prospect:
“Our congressional leaders are still inclined to dance around the issue or to find salvation in a formula that calls for American disengagement — but gradually and without indicating what that means in terms of levels or dates. I m not sure that s a wise policy. Because once you begin to draw down your troops, it s probably better to remove them rapidly. If you scale down your presence gradually, the reduced numbers are going to be in jeopardy. Moreover, it doesn t have the psychological and political effect of shaking Iraqis into a realization that it is their responsibility to stand on their own feet. We need to scale down our definition of success and realize we re not going to get a “democratic,” secular, pro-American Iraq. We re going to get an Iraq that is responsive to Iraqi nationalism and dominated by a combination of Shiites and Kurds with some proportion of Sunnis adjusting to that reality. It will probably be more theocratic in character than we would like to see. But it will be a regime that responds to current political realities. I think we need to bite the bullet and leave sometime in the next year.
Do you think the Iraqi army is going to be ready soon?
I think our course with the Iraqi forces verges on the absurd: It is all about us training them. The question arises: Training them to do what? If it is a matter of knowing how to use a Kalishnikov in order to kill other people, I think most military-aged Iraqis don t need our training. If it is a question of training Iraqis so they behave and act like American soldiers, that s well and good. Except that is not what is needed in the circumstances we will be bequeathing them. What is needed is motivation based on loyalty to the powers that be. That will mean loyalty to various Shiite militias with a clerical connotation and loyalty to the two major Kurdish formations. Plus, perhaps eventually, loyalty to some Sunni militias based on a tribal allegiance. The motivation is not going to be created by American sergeants who are — quote, unquote — “training” them how to behave like American soldiers.
What kind of Iraqi army will we see?
The Iraqi army will be a reflection of Iraqi society. The question is: Can there be a political arrangement along major groups in which individual Iraqis owe personal allegiances to different groups? I think so. Iraqis may not like each other that much, but they dislike Americans just as much — or even more.
This is such a tired debate. Here’s a question that will get everybody to give up those talking points: is the political environment of Iraq post-election likely to encourage the new Iraqi forces to assume the mantle of national reconciliation, unity and defense, or will the country remain fatally fractured on ethnic and sectarian lines such that the newly trained Iraqi army will turn on itself in civil war. The presence or absence of US troops seems immaterial to this question right now. Sure, US troops help to prevent any full-on civil war, but their presence also serves as the raison d’etre for a sizable portion of the Sunni insurgency. Leaving Iraq may mean the Sunnis won’t be killing American anymore. But it almost certainly means that Shi’ites will start massacring Sunnis and Sunnis will return in kind. Or, for those who support withdrawal in the near future, will the absence of US troops actually encourage Sunnis to accept their new minority status peacefully, with Shi’ites in turn welcoming the Sunnis into the army and the government as brothers?
I thought this war was a disaster from the beginning. But I oppose any near-term withdrawal because I think Iraq is a powder keg ready to explode. There is so much hatred that has built up over decades that only a full civil war will resolve matters. I don’t place much stock in the whole international terrorist argument one way or another because 95% of the Iraqi insurgents are fighting for Iraqi concerns, not the creation of a global Islamic state. The Iraqi insurgents want a Sunni-dominated Iraq, not resurrection of the Caliphate. So the reason for staying in Iraq, in my opinion, is not because of some message that withdrawal would send. The reason for staying is that the absence of US forces in Iraq will lead to total civil war and possible genocide.
The reason for staying is that the absence of US forces in Iraq will lead to total civil war and possible genocide.
It’s already a low-grade civil war; one that has American troops getting killed and wounded for no good purpose.
I remain incredulous at those “stay the course” folks who believe that continuing a failed policy that has demonstrated nothing but failure will somehow lead to a miracle. These folks need a lesson in the concept of “sunk costs.”
It seems like deaths in a war is something new to liberals
CIA missile strike kills al-Qaida No. 3
But…but…but…How can this be?!?!? WE’RE IN IRAQ!!!!
We can’t kill REAL terrorists while we’re in Iraq!!!
And guys? The whole chickenhawk meme is really old. Find something new drivel. Twits.
From WikiPedia:
Economists argue that, if you are rational, you will not take sunk costs into account when making decisions.
Another way to look at it is: The military will not stop spending money, nor US troops no longer die, because we have pulled out of Iraq.
Even a man who is a civilian today, and who fails to join the military, because there is no war in Iraq, will die eventually.
Britain’s last survivor of the World War I “Christmas truce” died about a week ago, at 106 years of age. How old do you think he would have been, if he had not entered World War I? 206?
The war on terror will go on — on their end, if not ours.
And you’ll be reporting to your local recruiting office when, Ian?
I’m going to clue you into something, Ian. Just because we have men and women who serve in our armed forces doesn’t mean you can squander their lives for your entertainment. You and your fellow chickenhawks seem to hold the notion the military exists for your pleasure.
So we should ignore casualties because every soldier will die eventually anyway? Frank, youre an idiot.
“So we should ignore casualties because every soldier will die eventually anyway? Frank, youre an idiot.”
Indeed, all murderers should be let go because, hey, their victims would have died eventually.
I didn’t say ignore the casualties, idiots, I said they will still die somewhere, even if they’re not in Iraq, or, for that matter, in the military. Quite a different thing. But I wouldn’t expect people fom inner or outer space to understand simple English.
Besides, are you under the impression that there are people anywhere who “ignore casualties”?
Who might they be?
If I might weigh in on the “chickenhawk” issue: There is no real “answer”, because there is no question. The whole chickenhawk meme arose out of Clinton’s resistance to the draft, and continued with the fact that Gore “served’ in Viet Nam, and Kerry “served” in Viet Nam, but Bush did not.
Then it went in two directions: People who served in the miltary were truly macho, while those who didn’t were poseurs; and secondly, that people who made pro – war pronouncements were supposed to “put up or shut up,” i.e., by joining the Armed Forces.
People who ask, “Why don’t you join up?” should be willing to accept the answer, “Because I choose not to.”
What is it about the chickenhawk meme that’s so old? The war still goes on. The army still needs new recruits. America still needs to be defended. It’s still a volunteer army. What’s different? Maybe the “meme” if one person on the Right could give a direct answer to the quesion: Have you volunteered to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan? If not, why not? Give a straight answer to straight questions and maybe it will go away. So far all I’ve ever seen is excuses and rationales, not answers.
Frank –
Plain English or no your first point is absurd.
Your second point is more rationale and excuses before finally getting to the point. “Because I choose not to serve.” I can accept that answer because it’s my answer. I choose not to serve. My question is how many war supporters actually come out and say that? Still further, however, what’s their rationale for choosing not to serve and how is it different from mine since the effect is the same: one less person in the army.
That would be my right eye, not eyes.
What is it about the chickenhawk meme that s so old?
It’s old and it’s not an argument. It’s a rhetorical form of bullying and has no place in a debate over the merits of the war. Decisions are made. If a person supports that decision, it is absurd to say that they must be actively involved or else they’re hypocrites. You pay less taxes now than you did prior to 2002. I’ll bet you haven’t been taking that extra cash and writing checks to the US treasury because you’re opposed to those tax cuts. If you want to debate an issue, do it honestly. Puffing your chest and screaming, “DID YOU ENLIST?!?” is a cowardly form of debate. It’s employed by those who cannot defend their position.
For the record, I could not serve even if I wanted to. When I went to enlist in the Army, the vision in my right eyes was too poor.
However, over the last 10-11 years, I have given quite a bit of my time volunteering at Veteran’s Hospitals in New Jersey and Florida. My father is a disabled veteran, and when he had to spend time in that hospital in East Orange New Jersey, I met many other veterans. Many of them were lonely guys who didn’t have families or families that never came to visit them. Their sacrifices meant quite a lot to me, and as such I would make it a point to go there at least once a month just to talk, play chess, watch a football/baseball game, etc. I still do it at the Vet hospital in Gainesville.
So you Frameone along with Jadegold and Oliver can all take your chickenhawk and 101st Keyboarders bullshit and shove it up your fucking asses.
No, Frame, what’s absurd is the idea that you want the US out of Iraq because you’re concerned about “our boys”. What if “our boys” were over there kicking ass and taking names, took 2000 casualties, but killed 100,000 terrorists. What if there were proof certain that those terrorist were coming from all over the world to help, and getting their asses sent to the 72 virgins, but it meant a veto – proof Republican Senate, and a solid Republican majority in the House in 2006, and definitely a Republican President (Giuliani? Rice?) in 2008?
Still interested?
You and I both know exactly what is motivating the left. And it’s got nothing to do with concern for “our boys”.
The biggest mistake about sending troops to Iraq was not sending enough troops to guard the borders and maintain peace inside Iraq. Bush was convinced it would be a piece of cake and he tried to do it on the cheap. He and Cheney did not foresee the number of insurgents who were willing to commit suicide to kill innocent people. If they really and truly wanted to do the right thing, they would have listened to the Generals and other experts who said we needed more boots on the ground to secure the country or else get out. For nearly 3 years we have been occupying Iraq and have beensitting ducks for terrorists who are willing to die to kill a few of us.
Most people believe we should have concentrated on getting Bin Laden, and we could have if we had not been diverted to Iraq. Fighting the war on terrorism should not have the same rules as conventional war.
“For the record, I could not serve even if I wanted to. When I went to enlist in the Army, the vision in my right eyes was too poor.”
Isn’t always the case.
Frank – I think that you miss that most folks are not whores to either Democrats or Republicans and that what they really want is a good paying job, to feel safe at home and to live free.
So IF we could wage a war that killed 50 terrorists to 1 American, our jobs were not shut down because the company could not help pay for health care and we did not worry about wingnuts watching our every move we would not mind if Tinker Bell sat in Power.
But so much for fantasy. Lets just go back to you are a stupid idiot and you and I both know exactly what the other is motivated by.
You support the war because of your own inadequacies, I don’t support the war because I hate Bush (as per Dugger). Speaks to psychological motives. Yours seem typical.
If you support more roads and bridges in your area, then you should be out building them, yourself.
See how moronic and stupid the chickenhawk meme is?
Furthermore, if EVERYONE who supported the war not only joined but were accepted (because you know, the military doesn’t send just any Joe Schmoe from the street), who would tend to the everyday jobs of treating our sick, policing our cities, fighting our fires, etc. etc.
You get the idea.
“See how moronic and stupid the chickenhawk meme is?”
That’s a nice, easy out for you guys and yet another example of the pro-war Right’s inability to answer the question directly. I guess you guys are just better at dodging questions than bullets. Makes sense to me.
Dugger’s straw man production company comments “on the deplorable tendency of the left to crow when the terrorists kill somebody – as if it is a polticial victory for them. I figure if my politics lead me to run and post a political zinger when Marines die, I done something wrong. But then you guys handled the Wellstone funeral, didn t you?”
There you go again.
BTW, the legislative branch gave Bush the option, not the mandate, to use military action. At the time is was a prudent way to give inspectors free reign, to make the inspection effort a credible way of determining whether Saddam had indeed disamed. It was an option given to a president who was constantly saying war was a last resort, that he had no plans to invade. Unfortunately, the president was not being truthful in public, only in private (“Fuck Saddam — we’re takin’ him out”). Of the 23 Senators who voted not to give the liar in the WH the military option, only one was a Republican.
Zappa, let me ask you a simple question — and don’t make a bigger fool of yourself than you already are by answering it here, but do think about it: What makes you call me a stupid idiot?
Why do you need to call me that? Does it make your opinion more valid? Does it give you a stiffy?
Just think about it. Who knows, you might learn something about yourself.
Want my answer, frame? I attempted to volunteer online on September 12, 2001, when I was 55 years and 2 months old. Now can I say fuck you and all the phony assed liberals who want us out of Iraq?
Oh yeah, I was wounded in Viet nam, and spent more time there than M’sieu Kerry, and I didn’t get to run for President — it’s not fair!
“At the time is was a prudent way to give inspectors free reign,”
Nahh. Every adult knew it was a vote for war. It was a bi-partisan vote for war. To pretend otherwise is to not understand our system of government. You’re trying to protect weaseling Democrats who were afraid to vote against the war but really didn’t want to vote for it.
The vote authorized war at the president’s discretion. It didn’t authorize a “prudent way to give inspector’s free reign.
Get a grip and come into the real world.
Dugger
I attempted to volunteer online on September 12, 2001, when I was 55 years and 2 months old.
Online? Another 101st Fighting Keyboardist!!
Regardless, I seriously doubt the services would take you, Frankie, on the basis of your advanced age and mental incapacities. But the point that escapes chickenhawks like Jay C, Frankie, Ian and Brandon is that you don’t have to serve in Fallujah. In fact, if you join the service–there’s a better than even shot you won’t ever see duty within 2,000 miles of Iraq. But you will be helping the war effort you demand others to sacrifice for.
And we realize some folks may not be physically and/or mentally suited for military service. But there are a ton of options open to these folks as well; contractor jobs both in the US and overseas is one of many avenues.
But as we’ve we seen–even that small sacrifice is too inconvenient for the Chickenhawk Brigade.
As a result of AWOL George’s idiocy, we’ve seen many men and women called to active duty. Many of them have lost their lives or been wounded and will never again live a ‘normal’ life. Almost all have suffered financially–their service has stalled or retarded or sometimes ended their careers in the civilain sector. And all of this doesn’t take into account the more subjective hardships placed on their families. That’s real sacrifice.
Yet, our chickenhawks talk about taxes, roads, bridges and online recruitment to obscure why they won’t make any of the sacrifices they so cavalierly demand of others.
“Get a grip and come into the real world.”
Welcome to the real world dugger where the Bush administration pays more attention to polls than the oft scapegoated “commanders on the ground.”
Oh, and guess who had a major role to play in the administration’s new “strategy” document. Was it the Pentagon? The CIA? The NSC? Tom Clancy? No. It was a political scientist from Duke university who specializes in public opinion and analyzing polls. And all you righties took it seriously and argued that it really was a plan. What a fucking joke.
This is not really a strategy document from the Pentagon about fighting the insurgency,” said Christopher F. Gelpi, Dr. Feaver’s colleague at Duke and co-author of the research on American tolerance for casualties. “The Pentagon doesn’t need the president to give a speech and post a document on the White House Web site to know how to fight the insurgents. The document is clearly targeted at American public opinion.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/politics/04strategy.html?hp&ex=1133758800&en=eded032aae63bdcc&ei=5094&partner=homepage
I say go ahead and try to sign up again boys. The military may take you now so you to can be sent to the desert by a bunch of incompetent clowns.
Dugger admits Bush was not telling the truth:
“Every adult knew it was a vote for war. It was a bi-partisan vote for war.”
This in spite of the fact that Bush said war was the last resort. In spite of the fact that Bush said he had no plans for war. Even if “every adult” knew he was lying, the were still bald-face lies.
“We said we would remove Saddam, and he is gone. We said we would hand over sovereignty, and we did. We said we would set up elections, and we did.”
So we can leave now right?
frameone : Yes, I have, so go fuck yourself.
Ha. Touchy, touchy JD.
That point being that the question is valid because for those who support the war there is, within the limitations set by the US military, an easy way that they can contribute directly and constructively to a cause they claim to hold dear. Congratulations are in order to JD for putting his ass where his mouth is, so to speak. God speed. For those who try but fail to get into the military let me suggest that the solution to your feelings of inadequacy at being rejected probably doesn’t lie in screaming louder to send other people to war.
buma,
You don’t get away with that w/me. Not one lie has ever been documented. No one has even made a comvincing case for a lie. its all just stuff you don’t like, that causes you to lose grip and charge ‘lie’ rather than try to analyze and figure out the best policy. And it was a vote for war and we always have war plans, already drawn up, at our fingertips for just about any conflict you want to imagine – so I strongly doubt the veracity of your allegation.
Dugger
So why don’t you document one truth, from the Cheney Administration’s buildup to their optional war, one truth regarding WMDs, connections with alQaida, mushroom clouds, and roving chemical weapons labs.
Why is Bush’s pledge to use war as a last resort NOT a lie? He was the one who got the inspectors the complete freedom of access to sites, but then he yanked them out when it was yet NOT CONFIRMED that Saddam still possessed the kind of weapons that Bush was using in his ruse. That pledge by Bush was a lie, plainly and simply.
buma,
Nice try at changing the subject. You alleged lies and when called on it – changed the subject. Typical.
Dugger, Still NOT ONE LIE documented, not one.
JadeGold: You can register for the Draft right here, peabrain
https://www4.sss.gov/regver/register_nc.asp
And I was already in the military. The closest you ever got to the military was getting boned by a sailor.
Dugger,
Where did I change the subject? You and “every adult” know that Bush was lying when he claimed war was a last resort. If you can’t “document” that Bush was telling the truth in that pledge I guess I’ll have to start trumpeting that as you have been called on it.
Still NOT ONE TRUTH documented, not one.
brilliant, buma, just brilliant.
you allege Bush lied. I challenge you to document ONE LIE, which you have abosultely failed to do, and your response was to come back sputter
something about documenting a truth. nope. You screeched lie and have failed miserably to back up your accustaion. ty and chanhge the subject all you want. You failed.
Dugger, Not One Lie Documented, Not One. Buma failed. Anybody else with a ‘lie’?
The Lie: (From Bush remarks to reporters on 7-14-03 with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at his side, in response to a question from the Washington Post.
As quoted on the White House Web site, Bush said,
“The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power…”
The Truth:
Saddam Hussein allowed a fully-equipped team of UN inspectors to comb every inch of his country – including previously off-limits Presidential palaces – for months.
George W. Bush knew this because he demanded that Iraq allow inspectors to return in 2002.
He knew this because millions of citizens around the world took to the streets to demand continued inspections, not war.
He knew this because he spoke about the inspections repeatedly, almost daily.
He knew this because he specifically urged the inspectors to leave Iraq when he issued his 48-hour ultimatum to Iraq on March 17, 2003.
____
Saddam did not throw out the inspectors. It was at Bush’s “urging” that they left.
Question for Dugger: What’s your definition of “documented”?
Wrong again. Saddam did at times NOT allow inspectors in (“Iraq on Tuesday rejected U.S. demands to allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors into the country.”). So Bush saying that Saddam had a chance and didn’t do it is correct. You inserted your own time lines, assumed a context to the question/response Bush was responding to and manufactured what you erroneously think is a lie. It ain’t so. if I asaid in 1996 Clinton has never been impeached, I would be correct. But you could, dishonestly, take that quote and requote it in 2003 and claim ti to be a lie. Which it wouldn’t be.
The question concerned past events (actually events prior to the 16 words speech which was also not alie) – well prior to the Kofi appearance. And in the past Saddam had clearly denied inspectors access. Its that simple. Try again.
And keep in mind, that even if you do find a disparity (you didn’t) for it to be a lie, there has to be ‘intent’. So when you find a disparity, then find some overwhelming evidence of INTENT TO DECEIVE and then we’ll talk lie. See, I don’t trust you to be a good mind reader.
Dugger
Here’s the lie again: The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power&
So you’re saying what? That Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 because Saddam threw out inspectors in the 1990s? And there’s no overwhelming evidence that Bush intended to deceive, since after all no one can read his mind? That’s positively O’Reillyan. Use reverse logic and there is no way you or anyone else can produce a single documented TRUTH uttered by Bush either.