Democracy is supposed to happen in Iraq in 5 years, or 10, with American help? Right. Americans have watched this administration play games with elections and wipe their @sses with the Constitution–and we’re supposed to think they’re fans of democracy?

Moreover, however small-minded he is, Bush does recognize what an ass he’ll look like for all time if he loses a war he didn’t even have to be in. And that’s a cause for which he’s perfectly happy to sacrifice soldiers until he runs out of time, or soldiers.

Whatever high-minded purpose anyone would like us to fulfill in Iraq isn’t going to happen without the Administration backing it. Unfortunately, siphoning money into the pockets of RNC contributors and stroking Bush’s ego IS is this administration’s mission in Iraq. That’s all–not democracy, not stability, not fighting Al Queda, not clapping for Tinkerbell. Any objective observer can see it. And in this regard, they’ve been brilliantly successful.

the emegency iraq supplemental that past on thursday night, was overwhelmingly apposed by house democrats (infact if 12 more were on the side of the American people, it wouldn’t have passed).

But no, all we hear is the classic “mistakes were made” bullshit, coupled with immediate spreading of blame to any and all Democrats for not confronting Bush on his mendacity and inocmptence at the time (though it might have been more culpable had any Democrat who had the termerity to question Republican lies not been immediately targeted for slanderous attack ads branding that person a coward, fifth columnist and friend of OBL). Oh, and let’s make sure we drag in Jimmy Carter, too.

Being Republican means never having to say your sorry. If there were some way to conscript these people into the war, I’d advocate it in a New York minute. One of two thing would happen: you’d finally have the number of troops remotely necessary to win (or at least not lose) the war, or we’d be out of Iraq before th first planeload of chickenhawks left Fort Bragg. My money would be on the latter outcome.

Oliver — Thanks for taking a swing at the questions. I’ve been anti-war and progressive most of my life, but I switched sides when Iraq came up. Since then I have had difficulty understanding whether the anti-war side has thought this one through and how. Like SFC and Kristo, I just don’t see Iraq in such bleak, black-and-white terms as you do, and I follow the news closely.

Now,back to making fun of Pres. Bush!

Bottom line up front: I think you have avoided answering a lot of the original questions, or come up with answers that I feel can be summed up as, “Who cares what happens, just get the troops out.” Maybe I have misread you. I don’t agree that the situation there is hopeless, I also feel it will be at least 5 more years before anything like “peace” breaks out in Iraq. I am sure that most Soldiers will tell you that Iraq is not worth the life of the comrades we have lost, and aren’t likely to break into Hollwood speeches about the greater good. At the same time, most of us still believe that the mission in Iraq, and the Iraqi people, are worth fighting to succeed in completing.

I am career Soldier, and I can honestly say that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had a huge impact on my time in uniform since 1990. The MIddle East has been a key area of study for me because of this, and it is frustrating to read of the preconceived notions and ignorance on both right and left, as though Iraq just showed up in people’s awareness in March 2003. You’d probably call me idealistic, or plain stupid, but in light of all the inhumanity the Iraqis suffered under Hussein’s regime, it was better that he was removed from power.( we should have done it back in 1991 when we had almost twice as many people in uniform, and genrally more international support and approval, but that is a moot point as well.)

In short, while I do agree that the planning for the war was greatly lacking to say the least, I feel that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a very good thing in the end. After two tours in Iraq, where I served as a translator, most Iraqis agree that it was as well. That doesn’t mean they approve of the present situation. NO, Iraq is still a dangerous place, and there are no corners to tuen, just a long walk to the end of the road. THe military is still wiling to walk that walk, but I fear that too many Americans are are willing to walk along with us.

Soldiers are generally pragmatic and not much for excuses; we get dropped into bad situations of varying degress and work to acomplish the task, THEN we go back and figure out what went wrong and who’s to blame. Because of that mentality, I have to agree that the arguments for going to war really are moot at this point. If we never get beyond the question of whether we should have invaded or not, we’ll never address the situation at hand.

Before I go further, I’d like to emphasize an often overlooked point; the problems facing US forces in Iraq are not easily defined. Almost from one town or city to the next, the “Enemy” to use a catch-all term, can be hardcore Al-Qaeda types, Iraqi nationalists or Baath-Party holdovers, sectarian militias, even simple criminal groups of no particular ideology; one solution does not fit all. Also, Iraq has really been a counterinsurgency since about May 2003. I’d encourage commenters to make an effort to read about counterinsurgeny operations in the past to gain an informed opinion.

Oliver writes,”On the domestic front, it will be better to have our troops not playing – essentially – pattycake with Iraqi forces who would just as soon betray them. Instead we would be back on track hunting down Al Qaeda and their affiliates instead of nation building.” In my experiences in Ninevah and Al Anbar provinces, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) were initially nonexistent, corrupt, poorly led or equipped, often composed of Iraqis not from the areas they were working in and therefore not integrated with the local populace, or any combination of the above. Over the course of many months, to years in some places, the ISF has become a capable and more trustworthy force, oftentimes drawn from the local populace and backed by them. In places like Ramadi the ISF and US forces are working together and getting rid of the Al Qada types, as well as establishing security in the city. Looking back at the news from places like Ramadi, Hit, and Habbaniyah, from 2006, during my last tour, it was considered the “most dangerous place in Iraq”. Before I left it had greatly improved, and the unit that relieved us has also seen greater stability and infrastructure improvements, increased cooperation, and greatly reduced attacks. IN fact, once the locals had determined that the US forces were willing to stick around and take on Al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and after being victimized by those terrorists, they turned against terrorist intimidation and starting doing exactly what the Amrican people and Congress want; they started taking responsibility for their own situation and worked to improve it. It’s taken a year, in one city, and over 5,000 troops to produce these results. Yes Ramadi is still dnagertous, but comapre last year to this year, it has improved. This is not spin, this is what I have seen with my own eyes.

Nation-building is directly tied to a positive outcome in a place like Iraq, and Afghanistan, in Counterinsurgency they cannot be separated. In short, if all we wanted to do was kill as many Iraqis as possible, we’d already be home.

You correctly mention the “detective work” vs. “random smashing of things” Hard to do detective work if the crime scene is under fire, and the witnesses are being intimdated or killed. Warfighting, nation-building, and police work are all part of the whole that is counterinsurgency. If the “random smashing” is your term for firefights, raids, and searches, it is disingenuous at best. Certainly things great and small to get shot up, blown up or otherwise destroyed, but that is hardly the first action taken in every situation.

I also disagree that Iraqis are somehow unable to embrace democracy; again, most Americans are unaware of Iraq before this war, and therefore unaware of what life under a totalitarian regime is like, as well as the effects of the removal of such a regime. I think readers should look at the break up of Yugoslavia after Tito. How long did that civil war last without international intervention? More than 10 years after the cessation of hostilities there, democracy is not in full bloom, and there are problem based on ethnicity and sectarianism, but people are rarely killing each other now. Is that a success or a failure, was US intervention there worth the effort?

Regarding possible future interventions. Oliver writes, “In Darfur, it’s clear work has to be done internationally but there’s no clear mission militarily.” So if we send humanitarian aid, for example, and the Janjaweed militias or Sudanese government block them or confiscate them, what is the appropriate repsonse? Take the military option off the table and I doubt that the convoys will be useful. Diplomacy only works if the aggressor believes that “Jaw Jaw is better than War War”.

Maybe you don’t think the US needs to get involved in places like that, but if you believe that the “international community” will effectively intervene and not use at least a threat of military action, I’d like some examples of success in the past before I agree. Again, stupid or idealistic, I believe that failure to intervene in what is a preventable humantitarian disaster is wrong.

I don’t believe that the US military is the answer to ever problem, BUT they are the only US agency that can be ordered to go soemwhere and less than peaceful, and have the ability and resources to get there and be effective. Many other US agencies are staffed with great people with the best of intentions, but they don’t have to go to a war zone. Look at the military’s ability to respond in comparison to the civilian sector in response to the 2005 Tsunami. Of course, civilian agenicies can often marshal greater resources for a sustained operation, and sometimes even have true experts in various fields to address problems, but their initial response is usually slower.

Last, sticking around to achieve success in IRaq is more than just a pissing contest with Al Qaeda and Sadr; if we turn withdraw on any terms other than our own, and any point short of a stable Iraq. It WILL reinforce the idea that the US has no heart for the fight, has no perserverance, and no loyalty to those who stand alongside it. If you think that it’s hard to get people to support US action now, just wait until next time if we withdraw prematurely from Iraq.

Really? Which ones?

I agree with you, the reasons for going to war matter. What I am pushing back against is the idea that they make a material difference in the decision of what to do on the ground in Iraq today or in the foreseeable future.

When you claim “the only way to make an occupation work is if the people on some level accept your presence”, you are correct. When you follow with “because our reasons for invading were illegitimate, the occupation was doomed”, you are doubly incorrect. First, there was nothing illegitimate about the invasion (your opinion notwithstanding), but apart from that, the Iraqis are quite sophisticated enough to be forward-looking: they are much more interested than you seem to be in the question of what we can do for them, what we are planning to do, and most importantly, how they can build their own future within the framework that we do (or don’t) provide for them. They are watching our internal debate closely, and making real-world decisions about work, family, investment, etc. based on what they think we will do in the medium term.

Anyway, to your “he’s still wrong, of course, but it’s hardly unusual for a government employee to be wrong.” Well, sure, I could be wrong. But am I? Let me list what I have claimed, that nobody here has taken knowledgeable issue with:

(1) Why we went to war matters a lot. It is a matter of record, that we can look up. I have looked it up. The reasons for going to war have stood the test of time well.

(2) Why we went to war has little bearing on what we should do now. Plans for tomorrow, next month, and next year should be based on what is going on today, and should be responsive to what happens in the future.

(3) “Nation building” is an important part of the fight against terrorism. Iraq is not hopeless. Have we made mistakes? Sure. But Oliver’s point, which he keeps hammering, that those who think success is possible are somehow ignoring the past four years, is a non sequitur. Your similar claim, that the occupation is “doomed”, is just wishful (in a Bush-bashing sense) thinking. Reality is much more flexible than you imagine. We may yet succeed. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?

(4) The “mission accomplished” speech, which really was a public announcement of the transition from phase 3 to phase 4 (per our warfighting doctrine, JP 3-0, 2001 edition, not the rewritten 2006 edition), was reasonably timed and appropriate. It might have been politically wiser to just downplay the transition (as was done in Afghanistan), but legally and militarily it was the right thing to do, at more or less the right time. The publicity aspect, the one part that might be open to some criticism, was Franks’ idea, not Bush’s.

BTW, I like the quasi-hippie moniker. I have often claimed, in discussion with liberals of an older generation, that we are like the Peace Corps with guns (not that many hippies bothered to join the Peace Corps, but I considered it, and I respect the few who did it). Same mission, different techniques. Maybe we can succeed where others have failed, or where others haven’t bothered trying. Maybe not. But fatalism is unjustified – the future is largely still unwritten.

fd10801, thanks for your service! I was too young for ‘Nam, but I grew up with the sense that I had missed out on something real and meaningful. My best instructors at Benning were all Vietnam vets, as was my first 1SG. All very knowledgeable, worldly, practical, and ethical leaders. Men whose legacy is tough to live up to.

Sine cera,

Kristo Miettinen

PS this might be the place to ask a simple question: what are Bush’s notorious “lies”? I can hear the eyes rolling out there, but really. I recall reading an article while I was in a medical waiting room, I think in the Atlantic magazine, that was somebody’s attempt to document, for the record, Bush’s most egregious lies, and I was surprised at how lame they were. Mostly on the level of accentuating the positive, downplaying things that the critic thought were important, but nothing concrete.

Mr Pipeline, I have a new policy. I will no longer respond to anonymous or obviously pseudonymous posts.

What an idiot.

My question was rhetorical.

I don’t recall that in my lifetime, any President ever did either of the two things you recommend.

I am no scholar of the American Presidency, but I’d feel safe betting that no American President has done either of those things.

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Now, if you are going to tell me that no President but Pres. Bush has ever erred, I will send you my address and you may come and shoot me.

1- Admit when you’re wrong and apologize, and be the bigger man
2- Endeavor not to be wrong in the future, learning from past mistakes

Nothing seen thus far suggests either the President, or his groupies in the apologist pundit class, are inclined to do either.

In this case, your trust problem is yours to deal with; not President Bush’s.

I’m sure others have pointed this out but it bears repeating. How we got into this war is not separate from what we do now because the people who lead us to war are still in charge. it has to do with trust and competence. If the Bush administration is both untrustworthy and incompetent, as I believe their pre-war and post-war actions are ample evidence of, that has a direct bearing on the kind of weight we should give any policies or proposals they come up with. They need to be held to a higher standard now than they were before, in other words.

You were wrong about WMDs, Al Qaeda links, troops being showered with rose petals, it only taking 3 weeks and 200 troops, and all that crap. Why the hell should we trust your judgement now?

As for intact infrastructure, you must be joking
As I quoted: “Except for the military, the Japanese government remained intact at all levels, and the Japanese had a tradition of democracy and civil society on which to draw…the German civil bureaucracy remained largely intact with a tradition of liberal, democratic government on which to build.”
Honestly, have you actually read a single fucking thing Ive been saying before deciding I must be lying by dint alone of my disagreeing with you?

“Tradition of civility?” Auschwitz? Rape of Nanking?
Yes, horrible instances of course, but outliers in the histories of, respectively, Germany and Japan, which contain by and large positive events in this regard. By comparison, the whole of the middle east itself has relatively few such positive events to speak of, what with the constant exploding people and whatnot.

The only common factor between Japan, Germany and South Korea was also U.S. involvement.

For… what, the third time? Fourth? Whatever it is, I again say that what those countries also all had in common which Iraq lacks is:

Distance from Terror states.
Inclination to pull together in spite of personal differences.
Existing civic infrastructure.
Cultural predisposition to… look why are you making me repeat this time and time again? Have you just entirely missed it when I say these things over and over again or are you intentionally ignoring them to avoid a personally uncomfortable realization?

Right, because majority popular support, a few billion dollars a month, and a few hundred thousands troops is “no authority and no ability to enforce anything.”

If the situation has been steadily deteriorating over there with casualties continuing to mount at an increasing rate, what does that tell you about the value of this “authority” you keep on about them having?