rik, I thought you did a good job of presenting your perspecitve without the usual ad hominen attacks. I thought your post deserved a reasoned response and I have tried to provide that here.
The fact of the matter is that if we have a problem with organized terrorists targeting innocent civilians (and we do) having said terrorists sharing real estate with the US Army, Marines, etc is precisely the best place for them to be.
No doubt, but how exactly do we distinguish between the "innocent civilians" and the "terrorists"?
Is a Sunni a terrorist or a victim? How 'bout a Shia? Is he with Sadr or against him? Worse, how do we even tell a Sunni from a Shia from an innocent civilian who just wants to be left alone? Or, up north, which side is a Kurd on?
BTW, for those who deny analogies with Vietnam (and I don't know if you fall into this category, rik), I would ask how this is different from trying to separate the VC from the ordinary "gooks"?
So ordinary grunts don't speak the language, can't tell the good guys from the bad and any mistake they might make can lead to, at the very best, a renewed hatred for the US or, at worst, at court martial for our troops. And you think this is the "best place" they should be? I don't.
The reality is that our military is not training terrorists...they're killing them in very large and gratifying numbers.
rik, this is just not true based on data from our own military. Again, our own military statistics indicate that about 7% (the last number I saw) of the people we had taken into custody were non-Iraqis. Everyone else is an Iraqi fighting another Iraqi. These combatants are NOT terrorists. Well, to be more accurate, they are not terrorists who focus their hatred on the US. They hate the US, it's true...but they hate each other just as much, if not more.
As a purely military contest between coalition forces and Iraqi national forces it was an historic success.
rik, this is just pure hyperbole. Really? A "historic" success. Can you identify anybody with any military expertise whatsoever who did not think we would blow the Iraqi army out of the water (out of the desert?)
When we finally do our cut and run they will come out of the woodwork declaring victory.
rik, why the "cut and run" hyperbole? When we leave/"cut and run"/redeploy/withdraw/whatever, you know the Islamicists will declare victory. Your use of such loaded language does not advance your position.
Bush's declaration has a place in history
Sure, as a minor footnote to his failed policies. But what did you mean by this statement?
Basically it makes no difference whether the insurgency is twice as bad, or twice as weak, even one IED attack can signal disaster, defeat, quagmire, etc if you have created the expectation that we would be greeted as liberators.
It was the Bush Administration (specifically Cheney and Rummy) who explicitly created this expectation.
This is where GWB screwed himself. He didn't take the enemy seriously enough.
I disagree. I think GWB did not know who the enemy was. You might see this as a minor linguistic quibble, but I think it is central to our failure. Who, rik, is the enemy? The Shia? The Sunni? Please don't tell me it is AQ in Iraq because they weren't there in any significant numbers before we invaded.
Dad had done a great job of limiting coalition involvement, setting clear goals, then bailing once the bare minimum goal was met. It was a grand success of imagery.
No, it was a grand success of diplomacy and geopolitics. Bush, Sr. created a REAL coalition by defining the mission as enforcing the UN resolutions that saw the Iraq invasion of Kuwait as unacceptable. He did NOT have a mandate to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. He stuck to the defined mission...good on him.
Geopolitically, he recognizd that taking over Iraq was a tar-baby. Too bad Jr. did not have the same perspective.
Saddam held several "victory" parades! He promoted the legend of victory until it became fact...then he printed that "fact" in Iraqi history books.
Yeah, so what? Everyone knew it was baloney.
Had a more complete job been done back then...we simply wouldn't have to be doing it now.
You're right. We would have been bogged down in that hell hole for 15 years, not 5.
Similarly if we bail now on Iraq the consensus among military experts is that we will have a far larger problem later.
This raises two questions. First, can you provide evidence of that "consensus"?
But far more importantly is your definition of "problem". What is, exactly, the problem you refer to? Sunni rebellion? Shia ethnic cleansing? Oil prices? Mideast stability? Iran influence in Iraq? Saudi influence in Iraq? What is the issue?
He has allowed a determined enemy (both foreign and domestic) to drive the debate.
Who is the domestic "enemy"? If someone dissents from Bush's policy, does that make them an "enemy"? Harsh words, rik.
Truly our world has been putting off "armageddon" for the last 60 years by proactively using diplomacy, sanctions, rewards, and military action to keep our enemies (communist or Islamic) from becoming strong enough to force the next world war.
You seem to think this is bad. First, the notion of "armageddon" is a silly one upon which to base foreign policy. Second, if such proactive policies have been successful, why not embrace and endorse them instead of suggesting they are wrong?
After this point in your post, rik, I got lost. It seemed to turn into a wider screed about "corporate culture", "globaism" and other such NWO nonsense. I'll try to read it again without the baggage of the previous parts of your post.
)
