Iraq - Better or Worse Since 2003?

[justone]

Not really, the war was fought against Saddam and his henchmen. They have been comprehensibly defeated. We are in a new conflict now - one for which we made absolutley no plan to fight and were completely unprepared for. To think the welcome mat would be laid out for us after the fall of Saddam was gross negligence of the highest order.

A new plan?? Hows about having any plan whatsoever!!

Anyway Justone back to the original Q......is Iraq better since 2003? Is there better security, better public services, law and order, a decent medical service, employment, homes or food? I haven't seen any of this happen.

I am afraid I would never be able to shake off my personal view. I never signed for the war in Iraq, but I signed for war with terrorists. I always considered attacking Iraq as a single strategy move (local military and political action in the war with terrorists) Attacking Iraq I wanted to hit, not exactly Saddam, but more Syria and Hamas, and Saudi's fundamentals and Iran. I did not see any better way to do it rather going through Iraq, taking in account the total geopolitical situation.
I did not know too much about Iraq, and like a fool, I was not expecting that liberated people would resist democracy, or may be I did not expect our military to allow "democratic'' protests of crazy fanatics led by mullahs. I expected quick surrounding of the protesters, taking whover were the leaders under arrest, and ... I expected an iron first holding the situation, and suppressing any unwanted movement with fire.
I compared things with Japan and Germany - could I imagine German Nazis democratically demonstrating? Also I was looking at Afghanistan where things were quite encouraging.

I don't think it was a gross negligence on my part in total strategy. But I have difficulties to adjust to political (Cons -Dems) situation home.

I don't know whether the situation is better for Iraqis as SySgt says. I, at least, don’t see an improvement expected by me at this time. If a progress is made by us, so it is made by terrorists. I know the goal is to make it better. But when Iraqis resist to improvements, it is difficult to reach the goals. I cannot blame only myself for that - Iraqis get what they want. Would you agree - if Iraqis wanted order and peace and prosperity, they would already have it. I don't see a way we would be an obstacle. Our demands are not irrational, and are no more selfish that our demand were in Japan not so long ago. I don’t feel an obligation to feed Iraqis with a spoon.

I more worry about the whole war. And I see the situation as a very difficult one. Of course, I have very little information - I hardly can trust media, but this is my feeling.

You have a good question: When Iraqi fights Iraqi where does this leave us? Whichever side we support (if we should indeed support either) will be tainted by US influence and undesirable to the rest of the Arab nations.

Do you have a winning plan? Any ideas which would help in war on terror?
I would hope the government is working 24/7 but I am afraid there is a lot of a short run personal party politics involved. I would let all parties to fight even fist on fist, but after the war, or at least not when we are in such difficult situation. You really should not be in hurry to blame me for problems. There have not been a war without mistakes on both side. So I did miscalculations on my side. The side quickly learning from mistakes has a lot more chances to win. So far I do not see our side learning.

 

[MSgt]

Fair points Gysgt but no-one ever said there were NO reconstruction projects taking place in Iraq. Also, most of your points provide details of reconstruction jobs/tasks to be completed. Its been several years since the war ended, do we know how many of the above have been completed?

You are entitled to your own opinion but I don't think asking for clean water/sanitation/electricity within three years is asking to wave a magic wand. The problem with all this is that there were absolutely no plans for it whatsoever at the end of the war. We are still paying the price for this lack of preparation.

BTW you still haven't answered the question Gysgt......is the present situation better than that immediately after the war?

3 years ago you could walk down the street without fear of car/suicide bombings. 3 years ago you could sleep at night without fearing your Sunni/Shia neighbour will burst into your house and kidnap/murder you.

I may be impatient but when we are told 'months not years' and then wait 3 years to raise concerns I don't think thats out of line.

The task in Iraq is important but lets try and do it well. The present administration has shown a complete lack of understanding as to what is required or how to establish a 'safe' state.

I know when Bush was asked to name any mistakes he had made (or was it his worst mistake I can't remember) he couldn't think of any....personall I don't think thats right. But tell my Gysgt..are you also of the opinion that the administration has made no errors with the path of post-war Iraq?

"Three years ago" Saddam was still in charge. If you ask a Sunni, he will most definately tell you that life was better. Of course, if you ask the majority Shi'ite and Kurds, you'll get a different answer. Lets end this panic sentiment of yours right now.

I did answer the question and, yes, you are way out of line. You're an impatient victim of the Gulf War drive by and your "opinion" is not based on any big picture facts. How much do you even really know? Establishin running water and electricity throughout a country that didn't have in the first place takes time. The existing infrasctructure was so neglected that much of it needed to be scrapped. For us, it's as easy as calling the power company which is in competition with other power companies. They fall out on an existing system, do some repair, and we are up and running again. You've been spoiled in America. We often forget or don't even know what is across the oceans.

1) By contrast, it took 14 months to establish a police force in Germany and 10 years to begin training a new German army. Keep in mind that they didn't have to contend with a religiously feuled insurgency bent on disrupting efforts.

2) Most of the decay is the result of over a decade of neglect and under-funding following the imposition of UN sanctions after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, as well as the impact of three wars starting with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

3) Despite left-wing arguments that the peoples of the Middle East aren't ready to rule themselves through the ballot box, Iraq held a third nationwide vote - with higher levels of participation than an American presidential election.

4) Iraq's Sunni Arabs, who were supposed to doom democracy, came out in masses to vote the last time. They were disappointed that their minority numbers didn't magically give them a majority (sound familiar?), but their largest parties are maneuvering for places in the new government.

5) The terrorists lost a lot of ground last year, figuratively and literally. Their savagery backfired with the population, and more Iraqi security forces stood up for their country. Meanwhile, our troops killed
terrorists in satisfying and lopsided numbers. The result? The terrorists still can create nasty local problems - but they can't destroy Iraq's future.

6) The Sunni Arab insurgents lost steam. Attacks still make headlines, but Iraq's major cities are far more secure than they were a year ago. Major combat operations moved from big cities to smaller cities - and then down to dusty border towns.

7) Every terrorist and insurgent tactic failed. Bombs may kill individuals, but they haven't been able to kill the new Iraq - or dishearten our troops. Extremist atrocities alienated Iraqis, and attacks on the country's infrastructure haven't won the bad guys any new friends. Late last year, they shifted their efforts to concentrate on Iraq's oil industry. They are failing at that, too.

8) Our military leaders are so confident about the situation that they believe we can reduce our troop levels significantly in 2006. So much for being defeated.

9) The international community became much more supportive of the new Iraq, forgiving Saddam-era debts while increasing aid and loans to the government. Foreign investment soared in peaceful Kurdistan (even the Turks invested).

10) The Middle East is changing, thanks to our removal of Saddam and our military presence. The process may seem glacially slow to our impatient tempers, but until our tanks reached Baghdad there was no hope of change at all. Now, Syrian troops are out of Lebanon, the Damascus regime is shaking, the whacky-for-Allah president of Iran is panicstricken (we can see this every time he opens his mouth), and even the Saudis have learned and decided that supporting evil in Iraq is bound to come back at them. It is poetic justice that they are hunting down their own terrorists within their borders now. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak is next.

11) Far from being discouraged, our Army and Marine veterans of Iraq have been re-enlisting in startlingly high numbers - knowing they'll be sent back to Iraq. The let's-just-surrender trio of Dean, Reid and Pelosi may believe we're bound to fail, but our troops are voluntarily betting their lives on a
win.

12) The American people displayed their inborn common sense again. As antiwar activists betrayed our troops with lies that we were losing, their fellow citizens shifted back behind the administration late last year. Abandoned by nervous Democrats, Cindy Sheehan had to go to Spain to attract an audience (even in Madrid, she didn't get much of one).

13) After failing to convince America's citizens or our troops that Iraq was doomed, our get-Bush-at-all-costs media shifted to exaggerating the domestic threat from intelligence surveillance. To hear the pundits howl, you'd think the National Security Agency had microphones in our showers and the CIA kept agents under our beds. But the dictatorship-of-the-intellectuals bunch failed again - instead of being outraged, a large majority of Americans support using any intelligence means necessary to get the terrorists before they get us. Made-in-Missouri common sense wins again.

14) Compared to two years ago and one year ago, the insurgency is almost none existant. What is left behind is a loosely unorganized rabble of foreigners mixed in with local Sunni fighters. Most Sunni fighters do not collaberate with the insurgency. The terrorists hurt their cause deeply by murdering and destroying fellow Muslims while on their rampage. They showed the Muslim world what their "martyrs" really are - monsters.

We've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions. The reality's in the middle, but still more hopeful than not. Despite the lurid media reports, more good things than bad are happening in Iraq. Progress is slow and painful. But it's still progress. Most of Iraq is recovering -- not only from the recent war, but from two generations of oppression. The Kurdish region is prospering, a model of cooperation, and the Shiites have behaved far better than initial worries suggested. The violence is isolated in the Sunni-Arab-minority region, a sliver of the country just west and north of Baghdad, which benefited most from Saddam's rule and has the most to lose under a democratic government. Very recently, the Sunni adherents to violence has learned a lesson - The Shi'ites will not simply roll over anymore.

Instant judgments that our occupation is somehow failing, though politically gratifying to a few, are inaccurate, destructive and ill-judged. It will be at least a decade before we can read the deep results of our actions in Iraq, but the initial indications are that they will be overwhelmingly positive. The world has begun to realize how high the stakes are in Baghdad. And global terror lost ground in 2005 in many more ways than you know. It would be a shame to let it all go to waste, because our own people are impatient and are too quick to suck on the headlines that sell newspapers.

 

[G-Man]

You are entitled to your own opinion but I don't think asking for clean water/sanitation/electricity within three years is asking to wave a magic wand.

considering we cant even resurect a structure in lower Manhattan within more than three years because of redtape and beurocracy, Id say asking to provide the things you mentioned for an entire country might be a tad harder than the oponents of this war are willing to admit.

Well there's little if any red tape and a seemingly endless supply of cash so whats the problem? Also, most of the population in Iraq is highly centrailsed in the major cities - why can't we sort this out? No-one expects gas/electricity etc in the middle of the desert straight away but fixing Baghdad/Basra is a completely different matter. One which we are apparantly unable to manage.

3 years ago you could walk down the street without fear of car/suicide bombings. 3 years ago you could sleep at night without fearing your Sunni/Shia neighbour will burst into your house and kidnap/murder you.

trading that for rape rooms, torture chambers and being thrown off buildings on a whim really isnt that great a deal IMO.

Thats exactly my point so i don't know what you are saying here. Are you saying its better now that we have suicide bombings and genocide killings as opposed to rape rooms, torture rooms etc? My idea of progress ain't swapping one for the other - thats why I'm saying no progress is being made.

 

[MSgt]

You are entitled to your own opinion but I don't think asking for clean water/sanitation/electricity within three years is asking to wave a magic wand.

That's because you aren't considering the environment. Besides this, you are exxagerating the lack of or are completely unaware of the progress. I'm guessing the latter and that is where your opinion is based.
Perhaps your political leanings are clouding the facts beyond the headlines. Perhaps you honestly do not know.

Well there's little if any red tape and a seemingly endless supply of cash so whats the problem? Also, most of the population in Iraq is highly centrailsed in the major cities - why can't we sort this out? No-one expects gas/electricity etc in the middle of the desert straight away but fixing Baghdad/Basra is a completely different matter. One which we are apparantly unable to manage.

You are talking about a city, not a small town. You are also talking about a city where insurgent terrorists have been actively sabotaging all efforts. You are also talking about a city where all existing sytems had to be ripped out and a new system is built. You are talking about a city where there aren't any "Home Depots" on the street corners where contractors can replace blown up equipment on a whim. You are talking about a city that has to be connected to other cities with non-existent or useless infrastructure. You are talking about an entire power grid and utility system being constructed from scratch.

I'm sure they are so sorry that under these conditions that they are unable to manage according to your time table.

3 years ago you could walk down the street without fear of car/suicide bombings. 3 years ago you could sleep at night without fearing your Sunni/Shia neighbour will burst into your house and kidnap/murder you.

Three years ago the shi'ite and Kurdish element had to worry about kidnap/murder and rape. I guess you must be lobbying for the Sunni's peaceful existence that they had three years ago.

Thats exactly my point so i don't know what you are saying here. Are you saying its better now that we have suicide bombings and genocide killings as opposed to rape rooms, torture rooms etc? My idea of progress ain't swapping one for the other - thats why I'm saying no progress is being made.

"Genocide" is a word used by ignorant people trying to paint an exxagerated picture. Look the word up and try to manage a more intelligent post. You're idea of progress seems to be a perfect transition. Anything less is "no progress?" It doesn't matter how many times you throw around "3 years." It won't make it seem any longer than it has been. 3 years in this environment is only 3 years. Post #22 and #27 pretty much sums up what you are so trying to dismiss.

 

[G-Man]

"Three years ago" Saddam was still in charge. If you ask a Sunni, he will most definately tell you that life was better. Of course, if you ask the majority Shi'ite and Kurds, you'll get a different answer. Lets end this panic sentiment of yours right now.

Gysgt, I like your reasoned opinions (although I don't necessarily agree with them) - at least you are prepared to argue on the facts as you see them, as opposed to blind agreement with policy makers.

I've got to come back to you on some of your points so here goes:

I'm arguing about progress since the demise of Saddam. No-one liked Saddam and we're all glad to see the back of him (although we may question the method used) so any reference to his time is power is un-necessary.

I did answer the question and, yes, you are way out of line. You're an impatient victim of the Gulf War drive by and your "opinion" is not based on any big picture facts. How much do you even really know? Establishin running water and electricity throughout a country that didn't have in the first place takes time. The existing infrasctructure was so neglected that much of it needed to be scrapped. For us, it's as easy as calling the power company which is in competition with other power companies. They fall out on an existing system, do some repair, and we are up and running again. You've been spoiled in America. We often forget or don't even know what is across the oceans.

How much do I know...well no-one knows everything but I like to keep myself well informed. I don't believe everything churned out by the govt. (nor that coming from persons like Mr Moore either) - I read about the facts and then make my own decisions - something I wish more of us would do (however you care to interpret the details). How long does it take to provide running water etc well I wouldn't like to give an exact figure but lets remember there are almost 150,000 military personnel available to help, unlimited cash flows to contractors and a seemingly unlimited supply of Iraqis wanting work. With a proper plan to lay the systems I would suggest we have had the money and workforce to do this for a very long time. The problem is....there was no plan. With a mass workforce of labourers (probably in the thousands) I would suggest we could have done this within the last 3 years if we had cared to think about it. Also, by giving these people jobs in the reconstruction you give them money to buy food, maintain a home and they would have first hand experience of what America is trying to do. This is something we COULD have easily done (with a plan). Missed opportunity?

1) By contrast, it took 14 months to establish a police force in Germany and 10 years to begin training a new German army. Keep in mind that they didn't have to contend with a religiously feuled insurgency bent on disrupting efforts.

Well, again thats a fair point but even before that war had ended US (and Soviet) forces had already made detailed plans for what would happen in the immediate aftermath. Also, technology has made rapid strides since 1945 - progress and targets are a lot more achievable. One other point - Germany had a severe lack of fit/healthy/working adult males at the end of the war to help with its progress (for obvious reasons) - Iraq suffered only minor (compared to Germany) losses of manpower during the gulf war - most of the soldiers deserted or surrendered. Anyway, Germany of 1945 is a long way from Iraq of 2003 and not entirely relevant in my opinion.

2) Most of the decay is the result of over a decade of neglect and under-funding following the imposition of UN sanctions after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, as well as the impact of three wars starting with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war

.

Very true - prior to the 1st gulf war Iraq was a bit of an oasis in the middle east (except of course for Saddam!). Equal rights for women, well supplied/run hospitals and universities and a wealthy society. Sanctions killed all this but did nothing to Saddam etc who all still lived like kings. Maybe the sanctions should have been thought out better.

3) Despite left-wing arguments that the peoples of the Middle East aren't ready to rule themselves through the ballot box, Iraq held a third nationwide vote - with higher levels of participation than an American presidential election.

I don't prescribe myself to either poliitical party so I hope that ain't directed to me! However, democracy is all about freedom of choice/freedom to vote etc - what we have here is a religious vote directed by Clerics and other religious authorities. If you are a Shia/Sunni you vote according to the speakers at your mosque....it may be democracy...but not as we know it.

4) Iraq's Sunni Arabs, who were supposed to doom democracy, came out in masses to vote the last time. They were disappointed that their minority numbers didn't magically give them a majority (sound familiar?), but their largest parties are maneuvering for places in the new government.

See point 3 - Sunni Arab's boycotted the election because their religious leaders told them to do so. To vote against their wishes (and in insurgent strongholds) would be very dangerous. Like I said...its democracy but not as we know it.

5) The terrorists lost a lot of ground last year, figuratively and literally. Their savagery backfired with the population, and more Iraqi security forces stood up for their country. Meanwhile, our troops killed
terrorists in satisfying and lopsided numbers. The result? The terrorists still can create nasty local problems - but they can't destroy Iraq's future.

Iraq has never supported terrorist groups (especially Al-Q) so the situation has not changed. Also, if our only tactic is to fight the terrorists as they appear on the battlefield I feel we will never win. For every one that falls another takes his place. If we sort out the reasons that drive them to terrorism (although some people are just mad and like being terrorists) and stop their recruitment then I feel we will have more success.

6) The Sunni Arab insurgents lost steam. Attacks still make headlines, but Iraq's major cities are far more secure than they were a year ago. Major combat operations moved from big cities to smaller cities - and then down to dusty border towns.

More secure yes..but secure i don't think so. There are almost daily car-bombings and suicide bombings so I don't think we have solved the problems. If the only way to stop it is to impose curfews from 5pm to 8am every day in addition to stoping traffic in the cities then I suggest Iraq has a very bleak future ahead of it.

7) Every terrorist and insurgent tactic failed. Bombs may kill individuals, but they haven't been able to kill the new Iraq - or dishearten our troops. Extremist atrocities alienated Iraqis, and attacks on the country's infrastructure haven't won the bad guys any new friends. Late last year, they shifted their efforts to concentrate on Iraq's oil industry. They are failing at that, too.

Terrorist tactics are to cause death and mayhem..there seems to be pleny of that in Iraq. Of course they will NEVER defeat the US in a major battle (i don't think we even lost one in Vietnam but that was before my time) but thats not what they are about. As long as there are US forces to target they will continue the fight. As for friends in Iraq..do you think they could care less? Sure, they want more fighters but if they had to kill every Iraqi to win (or defeat the US) I'm quite sure they would do it.

8) Our military leaders are so confident about the situation that they believe we can reduce our troop levels significantly in 2006. So much for being defeated.

Not quite sure about this one - troop levels seem to be dictated by political matters at home - you know, elections and all. When Bremer asked for more troops (a heck of a lot more as I recall) the govt. refused...but if those on the ground in Iraq say they need more the govt (whichever one it is) should oblige. Our troops lives should not be used as political weapons - you can call this political opportunism or whatever you like I couldn't care - as I've already said there's lots still to be done in Iraq..you know rather than send them home we could use them in the reconstruction effort..why the rush to get them home?? Elections and polls??

9) The international community became much more supportive of the new Iraq, forgiving Saddam-era debts while increasing aid and loans to the government. Foreign investment soared in peaceful Kurdistan (even the Turks invested).

Some debts have been forgiven ..others are being paid back in oil rights. As for loans, well thats just what a bankrupt govt. needs. I may be wrong but I still think the UK is paying back the US for loans made to help it fight the Nazis - before we entered the war. Thats over 60 years ago. How very nice of us to weigh this govt. down with a debt which it might never pay back. As regards Kurdistan - well they are rich in oil, have their own militias to protect themselves and want to break away from the rest of Iraq. The first step towards splitting Iraq in 3 perhaps??

 

[G-Man]

Apologies...had to split in 2

10) The Middle East is changing, thanks to our removal of Saddam and our military presence. The process may seem glacially slow to our impatient tempers, but until our tanks reached Baghdad there was no hope of change at all. Now, Syrian troops are out of Lebanon, the Damascus regime is shaking, the whacky-for-Allah president of Iran is panicstricken (we can see this every time he opens his mouth), and even the Saudis have learned and decided that supporting evil in Iraq is bound to come back at them. It is poetic justice that they are hunting down their own terrorists within their borders now. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak is next.

The Middle East is changing. By our determination to spread democracy we are seeing mass votes for fundamental islamic groups across the region. Palestine/Iraq and Egypt ,if they ever get round to voting, will follow this path. You know...it seems to me like we are doing Osama's work for him here because he wants an Islamic state across the middle east and we are letting the people vote it in. That is very strange! How does that saying go..be carefull what you wish for because you umay get it!

Another interesting point is that S.Arabia still seems immune from the US pressures of democracy. It has an appaling human rights records, a total dictatorship and woman are treated like 2nd (3rd or 4th) class citizens. I wonder why washington seeks no change here??

11) Far from being discouraged, our Army and Marine veterans of Iraq have been re-enlisting in startlingly high numbers - knowing they'll be sent back to Iraq. The let's-just-surrender trio of Dean, Reid and Pelosi may believe we're bound to fail, but our troops are voluntarily betting their lives on a win.

Well I'm definately no expert on this unlike you gy so I don't have the facts to argue. However, if it is true that we are having to force soldiers to stay longer than their tour of duty then this can't be good for morale. If you don't want to be there and feel you shouldn't be then that can't be good. We are supposed to be a volunteer army remember.

12) The American people displayed their inborn common sense again. As antiwar activists betrayed our troops with lies that we were losing, their fellow citizens shifted back behind the administration late last year. Abandoned by nervous Democrats, Cindy Sheehan had to go to Spain to attract an audience (even in Madrid, she didn't get much of one).

Losing what?? We'll never lose a battle or our grip over Iraq. Will America ever fall to the terrorists..I very much doubt it Gy. Will we ever defeat terrorism...on our present course I very much doubt it. You know instead of building a few more nukes to chuck on the stockpile we could try feeding the world, helping the poor, removing dictators and murderers from power (not just those that are anti-US/West) etc etc. America's stock around the globe would soar and we would be back to being the home of the free. You know these things would hurt us a bit..but they ain't impossible.

13) After failing to convince America's citizens or our troops that Iraq was doomed, our get-Bush-at-all-costs media shifted to exaggerating the domestic threat from intelligence surveillance. To hear the pundits howl, you'd think the National Security Agency had microphones in our showers and the CIA kept agents under our beds. But the dictatorship-of-the-intellectuals bunch failed again - instead of being outraged, a large majority of Americans support using any intelligence means necessary to get the terrorists before they get us. Made-in-Missouri common sense wins again.

Despite what you may think I don't want to see the detruction of Iraq. I'm here posing questions and raising awareness to try and STOP that occuring. I believe (you don't but thats fair enough) our policies in Iraq are failing. I would much rather see us change course and avert a crisis than see Iraq burn just to 'get Bush'. You know he's really just the lucky son of an oil baron with big connections...why does he matter so much to you?? Its almost as though people say we must keep him/get rid of him just to please the other side. How about just doing whats best?

14) Compared to two years ago and one year ago, the insurgency is almost none existant. What is left behind is a loosely unorganized rabble of foreigners mixed in with local Sunni fighters. Most Sunni fighters do not collaberate with the insurgency. The terrorists hurt their cause deeply by murdering and destroying fellow Muslims while on their rampage. They showed the Muslim world what their "martyrs" really are - monsters.

You know 'loosely organised rabble' is the exact phrase I would use to decribe Al-Q! There is no command structure and the groups don't work together (lucky for us). What you have is multiple groups all opposed to US actions/interventions around the world. Does anyone actually think Osama runs things from a laptop whilst sitting on the back of his donkey? Get real!
As for Iraq, well the US casualities still come but they will get less because Iraqi forces are now patrolling the streets. To make a true comparions of how active the insurgency is you would have to keep count of all the Iraqi police/army members killed to compare numbers...as far as I'm aware no-one does this because we don't count Iraqi casualities.

We've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions. The reality's in the middle, but still more hopeful than not. Despite the lurid media reports, more good things than bad are happening in Iraq. Progress is slow and painful. But it's still progress. Most of Iraq is recovering -- not only from the recent war, but from two generations of oppression. The Kurdish region is prospering, a model of cooperation, and the Shiites have behaved far better than initial worries suggested. The violence is isolated in the Sunni-Arab-minority region, a sliver of the country just west and north of Baghdad, which benefited most from Saddam's rule and has the most to lose under a democratic government. Very recently, the Sunni adherents to violence has learned a lesson - The Shi'ites will not simply roll over anymore.

Instant judgments that our occupation is somehow failing, though politically gratifying to a few, are inaccurate, destructive and ill-judged. It will be at least a decade before we can read the deep results of our actions in Iraq, but the initial indications are that they will be overwhelmingly positive. The world has begun to realize how high the stakes are in Baghdad. And global terror lost ground in 2005 in many more ways than you know. It would be a shame to let it all go to waste, because our own people are impatient and are too quick to suck on the headlines that sell newspapers.

Again, please don't discard my point of view because of a perceived political bias. Sure, I think Bush is making major mistakes but I ain't singing the praises of the democrats or saying they could do better.

Instant judgements is not 3 years down the line to me but again we'll just have to agree to diaagree on that one. Also,if you think it'll take a decade why not just tell us (could Rummy/Chenney honestly have mistaken months for years?) - again I can't help but feel this is politicians lying because of a fear of losing at the polls. Why don't they just do the right thing and take things as they might be? You know the one major drawback of democracy is that you get a bunch of politicians running the show!!

Finally, it would be a shame to let it all go to waste but unfortunately thats where I feel its headed. Thats why I want a change of plan/direction/leadership. I couldn't give a damm if its a republican or democrat that takes over as long as its someone who has the ability to sort out this mess and take America forward.

The END (phew!!)

 

[G-Man]

That's because you aren't considering the environment. Besides this, you are exxagerating the lack of or are completely unaware of the progress. I'm guessing the latter and that is where your opinion is based.
Perhaps your political leanings are clouding the facts beyond the headlines. Perhaps you honestly do not know.

You are talking about a city, not a small town. You are also talking about a city where insurgent terrorists have been actively sabotaging all efforts. You are also talking about a city where all existing sytems had to be ripped out and a new system is built. You are talking about a city where there aren't any "Home Depots" on the street corners where contractors can replace blown up equipment on a whim. You are talking about a city that has to be connected to other cities with non-existent or useless infrastructure. You are talking about an entire power grid and utility system being constructed from scratch.

I'm sure they are so sorry that under these conditions that they are unable to manage according to your time table.

Three years ago the shi'ite and Kurdish element had to worry about kidnap/murder and rape. I guess you must be lobbying for the Sunni's peaceful existence that they had three years ago.

"Genocide" is a word used by ignorant people trying to paint an exxagerated picture. Look the word up and try to manage a more intelligent post. You're idea of progress seems to be a perfect transition. Anything less is "no progress?" It doesn't matter how many times you throw around "3 years." It won't make it seem any longer than it has been. 3 years in this environment is only 3 years. Post #22 and #27 pretty much sums up what you are so trying to dismiss.

Well I'm sorry to see you have resorted to trading insults..I guess the agruement was getting too much for you.

'Genocide' - The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

So Sunni/Shias deliberately trying to murder one another is not a form of Genocide? Targeted killings based on race/ethnic groups is genocide - fact. The word may not sit in nicely with your definition of progress in Iraq but its taking place and thats a fact. Instead of burying our heads in the sand why not try solving the problems?

On one hand you say the insurgency is collapsing yet with the other you say establishing systems is impossible because of insurgent activity. Surely a contradiction. Is there a lot of insurgent activity or not, you seem to be changing your mind (or flip-flopping as the media would say...you'd better not run for any postion in the future!) from your previous position.

Again, I ain't got a time table for the task to be done (don't remember ever saying I had)...its just that 3 years with nothing ain't acceptable to me. Sorry, you may wish to wait another 10 years before deciding the administration is inept but I think they've had long enough.

Again, you miss my point. Everytime I raise the issue of suicide bombings, terrorist attacks and murders you come back and remind of us Saddams crimes. If you're happy to accept swapping the old situation for the new as progress then good luck to you but I don't find either acceptable and I don't regard the present situation as progress. Swapping one set of criminals for another ain't progress.

 

[MSgt]

How long does it take to provide running water etc well I wouldn't like to give an exact figure but lets remember there are almost 150,000 military personnel available to help, unlimited cash flows to contractors and a seemingly unlimited supply of Iraqis wanting work.

The troops are not there for that. Many Iraqis want the efforts of this struggle handed to them. They are also only technically efficient to handle certain parts of the jobs. There may be an endless supply of money, but there isn't an endless supply of equipment. Like I said, one simply can't goe to Home Depot or Lowes to replace blown up equipment.

With a proper plan to lay the systems I would suggest we have had the money and workforce to do this for a very long time. The problem is....there was no plan. With a mass workforce of labourers (probably in the thousands) I would suggest we could have done this within the last 3 years if we had cared to think about it. Also, by giving these people jobs in the reconstruction you give them money to buy food, maintain a home and they would have first hand experience of what America is trying to do. This is something we COULD have easily done (with a plan). Missed opportunity?

How much a plan was there supposed to be? Do you honestly believe that you have it all figured out to be such a simple thing despite the thousands of planners, contractors, and humanitarians involved?

Anyway, Germany of 1945 is a long way from Iraq of 2003 and not entirely relevant in my opinion.

It is very relevent. The difference is that Germany did not have to suffer an insurgency while pickiing itself up.

If you are a Shia/Sunni you vote according to the speakers at your mosque....it may be democracy...but not as we know it.

See point 3 - Sunni Arab's boycotted the election because their religious leaders told them to do so. To vote against their wishes (and in insurgent strongholds) would be very dangerous. Like I said...its democracy but not as we know it.

Mere Negativity to cast a shadow on any kind of light. Democracy in the Middle East will never be what we would like to see. But our brand of democracy is not the only brand of democracy. The Sunni learned a lesson. I might add that they also learned a lesson by bombing a Shi'ite temple. Shi'ites and Kurds are looking to the future. The Sunni are looking behind them. They will learn, even if that lesson comes the hard way.

Iraq has never supported terrorist groups (especially Al-Q) so the situation has not changed. Also, if our only tactic is to fight the terrorists as they appear on the battlefield I feel we will never win. For every one that falls another takes his place. If we sort out the reasons that drive them to terrorism (although some people are just mad and like being terrorists) and stop their recruitment then I feel we will have more success.

Again, you speak of things you do not know. The cancer of Radical Islam grows where socio-economic conditions are poor; governments are repressive and unable to provide essential social services, such as providing adequate oversight of their educational system….or have allowed / sanctioned Radical Islamic curricula. The ongoing Global War on Terrorism targets the current generation of terrorists; however, unless the ideology that spawned them is also countered the long-term threat to the U.S. will exponentially grow with time. What do you think U.S. Marines and German soldiers are doing in Chad, Ethiopia, and Sudan? What do you think U.S. Marines are doing in Bosnia? What do you think U.S. Marines and Indonesian forces are doing in Indonesia? What do you think our diplomacy is doing with Syria (with Lebanon) and Saudi Arabia (with their rounding up of their own terrorists)?
What do you think U.S. Marines and Phillipine Marines are doing in the Phillipines? What do you think everyone is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?

More secure yes..but secure i don't think so. There are almost daily car-bombings and suicide bombings so I don't think we have solved the problems. If the only way to stop it is to impose curfews from 5pm to 8am every day in addition to stoping traffic in the cities then I suggest Iraq has a very bleak future ahead of it.

"More secure...yes?" Isn't it you that is proclaiming that there is no progress after 3 years? Don't back pedal now. We cannot stop an individual that wishes to destroy himself with a bomb. From Egypt to "Palestine" to Syria to Iraq to Saudi Arabia and to Iran this is their civilization. "Solving the problem" is not a western responsibility. The only thing that will fix the Muslim world is Muslims. That role is reserved for them. All we can do is provide the opportunity. Again...you are calling for the magic wand of immediate success. (And yes...3 years is considered immediate.)

Terrorist tactics are to cause death and mayhem..there seems to be pleny of that in Iraq. Of course they will NEVER defeat the US in a major battle (i don't think we even lost one in Vietnam but that was before my time) but thats not what they are about.

Wrong. Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, defines terrorism as "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." It is not simply to cause "death and mayhem." However, this is not to suggest that some terrorists (Apocalyptic) cross the line into a crazed unearthly agenda.

I guarantee that there is more violence in some American cities than there is in the country of Iraq. Keep in mind that when you hear about a bomb going off in a Baghdad street, there is an entire country that had a very good and peaceful day that didn't see any violence at all. Perspectives. Again.....get past the headlines that sell papers.

Not quite sure about this one - troop levels seem to be dictated by political matters at home - you know, elections and all.

The military has and will always be a tool for both political parties. Between them and the general fickle and bored American that wants us to go kill and destroy for him and then has a quick change of mind when we start to die...we are always a tool. It's an accepted job hazard.

The Commanders in theater are making the decisions about what is going on militarily in Iraq. If they tell the President that it is time to go, then it is time to go. The only time politics played out on the battlefield in Iraq was first Fallujah. Because of it, second Fallujah had to happen.

The first step towards splitting Iraq in 3 perhaps??

So be it. (Kurdistan) They deserve it.

 

[MSgt]

By our determination to spread democracy we are seeing mass votes for fundamental islamic groups across the region. Palestine/Iraq and Egypt ,if they ever get round to voting, will follow this path.

This is a lie. Hamas is a fanatic group of zealots. The leaderhip in Iraq is not. The leadership in Egypt is not.

Another interesting point is that S.Arabia still seems immune from the US pressures of democracy. It has an appaling human rights records, a total dictatorship and woman are treated like 2nd (3rd or 4th) class citizens. I wonder why washington seeks no change here??

Do you like your gasoline? Don't wonder too hard. It's your interests being protected. Again...you are showing that wish for that magic wand.

Well I'm definately no expert on this unlike you gy so I don't have the facts to argue. However, if it is true that we are having to force soldiers to stay longer than their tour of duty then this can't be good for morale. If you don't want to be there and feel you shouldn't be then that can't be good. We are supposed to be a volunteer army remember.

I don't speak for the Army, although their re-enlistment numbers are up as well. The Army as an institution has a lot of personnel problems. They did volunteer and they volunterally sigfned a contract. They are being made to do anything that they didn't sign up for. (This includes those that just signed up to wear a uniform for two weeks a year and for a free ride.)

Losing what?? Will we ever defeat terrorism...on our present course I very much doubt it. You know instead of building a few more nukes to chuck on the stockpile we could try feeding the world, helping the poor, removing dictators and murderers from power (not just those that are anti-US/West) etc etc. America's stock around the globe would soar and we would be back to being the home of the free. You know these things would hurt us a bit..but they ain't impossible.

During the Presidential campaign it was publicly stated by our politicians that our troops are losing in Iraq.

You doubt it, because you are focused on Iraq and nowhere else. I assure you that there is a lot more going on regarding today's terrorists and the prevention of future terrorists. (I'll pm you on Bosnia if you like.) More can be done, but one thing at a time. (I'll drop a post on my ideas if you like.)

Again, with regards to helping the world, you are focused on Iraq. We already do far more than anyone else and in many places we are alone. "We" are not the problems. We, however, are always the scapegoat when countries in Europe need us to explain away their absence. How many times have we heard that we are wasting money and lives in Iraq when there are so many places in the world that could have benefitted? Do we stop to think about where this sentiment was before Iraq?

Why does he matter so much to you?? Its almost as though people say we must keep him/get rid of him just to please the other side. How about just doing whats best?

The CIA, international intelligencia, Middle East experts, social experts, and the U.S. Military has been screaming about this civilization in the Middle East since the mid 80's. We have repeatedly warned our government that Islamic Radicalsim is on the rise and that one day it will be so big that it will pose a real threat to our country. Lt.Col Oliver North warned the panel of Senators during the Iran/Contra heariongs about Osama Bin Laden himself. He said, "Senators, I have seen the face of evil and his name Osama Bin Laden." They laughed at the name.

We went through President Reagan. We went through President Bush Sr. who was the head of the CIA at one time and chose to ignore it rather than play with his political career of dealing with an unpopular subject (Religion and civilizations). We went through President Clinton who also knew about this problem but instead chose to appease the American people for sake of his polls rather than lead them. Then there came President Bush. Were it not for 9/11, we would probably still be ignoring this growing threat. Either way, he started to listen.

So, he doesn't "matter so much." He is just the guy doing "what's best" and without a script to go by.

To make a true comparions of how active the insurgency is you would have to keep count of all the Iraqi police/army members killed to compare numbers...as far as I'm aware no-one does this because we don't count Iraqi casualities.

Because it is impossible. Do you have any idea how many dead civillians were combatants before they were killed and their weapon was picked up by another fighter? Join the club. We don't either. We are facing militant civillians without uniforms and without any banner. They are clothed just like any other civillian walking the street. It is just impossible to count.

I think Bush is making major mistakes.

Yes he has and so have Field Commanders.

Also,if you think it'll take a decade why not just tell us (could Rummy/Chenney honestly have mistaken months for years?) - again I can't help but feel this is politicians lying because of a fear of losing at the polls.

When they spoke of months, they were speaking on a clean Iraq war to end when it did. What they did not expect (and no one else did really), was that this clash between our civilizations was to begin. I have done the study, therefore I was not surprised (This is not to suggest I expected it). What was inevitably going to happen was going to take place right in Iraq. The war in Iraq opened up a can of worms that needed to be opened, but it also has slowed internal progress. However, this "War on Terror" is going to go beyond our life times. It is going to take generations of Muslims in the Middle East to get away from oppression and to recognize that their religion must change (all religions have done it) to suit the needs of progress.

 

[MSgt]

'Genocide' - The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

So Sunni/Shias deliberately trying to murder one another is not a form of Genocide? Targeted killings based on race/ethnic groups is genocide - fact. The word may not sit in nicely with your definition of progress in Iraq but its taking place and thats a fact. Instead of burying our heads in the sand why not try solving the problems?

This is no where near "genocide." The word doesn't fit at all. When terms of such magnitude are thrown about to describe any sort of violence it takes away from the meaning. Sudan was (is) a genocide. Rwanda was a genocide. The Jewish Holocaust was a genocide. The American Indian was a genocide. There are many more examples all through history. Car bombs and suicide bombings are a common thing in Israel too. Is this a genocide of the Israeli people? Of course not.

On one hand you say the insurgency is collapsing yet with the other you say establishing systems is impossible because of insurgent activity. Surely a contradiction. Is there a lot of insurgent activity or not, you seem to be changing your mind (or flip-flopping as the media would say...you'd better not run for any postion in the future!) from your previous position.

Stating the insurgency has collapsed while ignoring the insurgency of the past three years is not in conflict or a contradiction.

Again, I ain't got a time table for the task to be done (don't remember ever saying I had)...its just that 3 years with nothing ain't acceptable to me. Sorry, you may wish to wait another 10 years before deciding the administration is inept but I think they've had long enough.

Despite facts to the contrary you continue this word - "nothing." Throw on a uniform and make a vist to the environment. Find out for yourself what is and is not progressing. Then you can make a better judgment on what is and is not "acceptable" to you.

Again, you miss my point. Everytime I raise the issue of suicide bombings, terrorist attacks and murders you come back and remind of us Saddams crimes. If you're happy to accept swapping the old situation for the new as progress then good luck to you but I don't find either acceptable and I don't regard the present situation as progress. Swapping one set of criminals for another ain't progress.

Negative. You are making the common mistake of looking at the opressive and peaceful brutality of the past and comparing it to the democracy building of the day. Are you seeing anything you don't expect from these people? You are criticizing the game in the 2nd quarter. This is what I mean when I type, "looking for the magic wand." The Middle East damn near defies solution, but something has got to change and it is not going to be the progressive western world.

 

[G-Man]

Well then I would suggest the troops have done their job. Personally, I don't see anything wrong in asking them to help with the reconstruction efforts - you know if we help out the disadvantaged in Iraq maybe we can persuade them not to go down the path of violence. Just an idea.

How much a plan was there supposed to be? Do you honestly believe that you have it all figured out to be such a simple thing despite the thousands of planners, contractors, and humanitarians involved?

C'mon gysgt...it may have taken a while but we both know this war was years in the making. There has been plenty of time to make plans for life after Saddam. Also, this nation can send men to the moon (and beyond) - I don't think bringing in experts in specific fields and asking them to draw up plans for Iraqi reconstruction is beyond us.

It is very relevent. The difference is that Germany did not have to suffer an insurgency while pickiing itself up.

Very true gy...but like I've already said our lack of forsesight in relation to the insurgency was a major mistake. It really should have been forecast by the 'experts'.

Mere Negativity to cast a shadow on any kind of light. Democracy in the Middle East will never be what we would like to see. But our brand of democracy is not the only brand of democracy. The Sunni learned a lesson. I might add that they also learned a lesson by bombing a Shi'ite temple. Shi'ites and Kurds are looking to the future. The Sunni are looking behind them. They will learn, even if that lesson comes the hard way.

Not really, if you can show me a state where democracy and extreme religion have been able to mix well I might believe it will eventually happenbut just looking at the events in Iraq this week tells us that religion is always more important. The Iraqi President (or whatever his title is) goes on TV and appeals for calm. Result = Nothing. The unelected religious leaders ask for calm and hey presto attacks or down (although not stopped). I don't think there's any real debate about who has the 'power'.

Again, you speak of things you do not know. The cancer of Radical Islam grows where socio-economic conditions are poor; governments are repressive and unable to provide essential social services, such as providing adequate oversight of their educational system….or have allowed / sanctioned Radical Islamic curricula. The ongoing Global War on Terrorism targets the current generation of terrorists; however, unless the ideology that spawned them is also countered the long-term threat to the U.S. will exponentially grow with time. What do you think U.S. Marines and German soldiers are doing in Chad, Ethiopia, and Sudan? What do you think U.S. Marines are doing in Bosnia? What do you think U.S. Marines and Indonesian forces are doing in Indonesia? What do you think our diplomacy is doing with Syria (with Lebanon) and Saudi Arabia (with their rounding up of their own terrorists)?
What do you think U.S. Marines and Phillipine Marines are doing in the Phillipines? What do you think everyone is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Like S Arabia you mean? Still no pressure on it to reform. Maybe it has to produce 3 Osama's and AQ terrorists group before we take action? Also I'm not sure we are in Sudan. As regards Afghanistan there was no talk of military action against the Taleban (they were over visiting the whitehouse prior to sep 11) until they refused to hand over Osama. Maybe we should have taken action against this ideology before it struck first?

"More secure...yes?" Isn't it you that is proclaiming that there is no progress after 3 years? Don't back pedal now. We cannot stop an individual that wishes to destroy himself with a bomb. From Egypt to "Palestine" to Syria to Iraq to Saudi Arabia and to Iran this is their civilization. "Solving the problem" is not a western responsibility. The only thing that will fix the Muslim world is Muslims. That role is reserved for them. All we can do is provide the opportunity. Again...you are calling for the magic wand of immediate success. (And yes...3 years is considered immediate.)

Yes, you can get more security if you build walls around entire cities, impose daylight curfues and ban traffic. I just don't think thats a realistic long term strategy. And if the only thing that will fix the muslim world is Muslims what the heck are we doing over there?

Wrong. Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, defines terrorism as "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." It is not simply to cause "death and mayhem." However, this is not to suggest that some terrorists (Apocalyptic) cross the line into a crazed unearthly agenda.

The goal is to remove US forces from Iraq and destabilise the govt. The actions taken to achieve it are 'death and mayhem' on a very wide scale.

I guarantee that there is more violence in some American cities than there is in the country of Iraq. Keep in mind that when you hear about a bomb going off in a Baghdad street, there is an entire country that had a very good and peaceful day that didn't see any violence at all. Perspectives. Again.....get past the headlines that sell papers.

Well only today 50+ died in car bombings and several UK soldiers have been killed. Didn't hear about anything similar in the US. N.B Today is not an exception to the general mayhem. We could probably pick any day from the last fortnight and get a similar result.

The military has and will always be a tool for both political parties. Between them and the general fickle and bored American that wants us to go kill and destroy for him and then has a quick change of mind when we start to die...we are always a tool. It's an accepted job hazard.

That may be so but I don't think its right. Perhaps if more of us complained about it politicians would change their ways. They won't if nobody says nothing.

The Commanders in theater are making the decisions about what is going on militarily in Iraq. If they tell the President that it is time to go, then it is time to go. The only time politics played out on the battlefield in Iraq was first Fallujah. Because of it, second Fallujah had to happen.

So when Bremner (who was in charge of Iraq at the time) said he wanted several thousand more troops in the country (hundreds of thousands I think) after analysing the situation and the whitehouse said no that was not political interference?

 

[G-Man]

This is no where near "genocide." The word doesn't fit at all. When terms of such magnitude are thrown about to describe any sort of violence it takes away from the meaning. Sudan was (is) a genocide. Rwanda was a genocide. The Jewish Holocaust was a genocide. The American Indian was a genocide. There are many more examples all through history. Car bombs and suicide bombings are a common thing in Israel too. Is this a genocide of the Israeli people? Of course not.

Well targeting a people because of their religion is genocide. Are you saying that its only genocide if you kill 10,000 people or maybe you have to kill 100,000 people I don't know?

Stating the insurgency has collapsed while ignoring the insurgency of the past three years is not in conflict or a contradiction.

Again you can't back this up. How many US/Iraqi forces were killed by the insurgency in Jan last year and how many in Jan this year? Of course US numbers will go down, we're pulling off the streets and back into our bases provding support when required to Iraqi forces. The Iraq army is now bearing the brunt of insurgent attacks, but like I said we don't count how many of them die so how can we establish if its getting better or not?

Despite facts to the contrary you continue this word - "nothing." Throw on a uniform and make a vist to the environment. Find out for yourself what is and is not progressing. Then you can make a better judgment on what is and is not "acceptable" to you.

I don't need to go there to see there's no security, no jobs, poverty, lack of power etc etc. These are what I would use to measure progress..not the voting in of a powerless and corrupt govt.

Negative. You are making the common mistake of looking at the opressive and peaceful brutality of the past and comparing it to the democracy building of the day. Are you seeing anything you don't expect from these people? You are criticizing the game in the 2nd quarter. This is what I mean when I type, "looking for the magic wand." The Middle East damn near defies solution, but something has got to change and it is not going to be the progressive western world.

Thats my point gy..something has to change. What we are doing and what we have tried has not worked. Time for some new ideas.

 

[MSgt]

Well then I would suggest the troops have done their job. Personally, I don't see anything wrong in asking them to help with the reconstruction efforts - you know if we help out the disadvantaged in Iraq maybe we can persuade them not to go down the path of violence. Just an idea.

This is because you do not understand your military. Although Marines are flexible and capable to handle a mutlitude of different type missions, we are not trained to deal with civil matters. While we are diverse in our technical abilities, we are focused on tactical equipment, not civilian sector technologies. (I am a communicator and I have the ability to plan and maintain communications systems in the field. However, I am largely useless to anything AT&T might turn me loose on.) We are ultimately a gun club with the abilities to sustain ourselves and few civilian projects in the field. The Sea Bees (Naval Engineers) are active in Iraq assisting contractors with heavy ruggedized equipment and technical know how.

C'mon gysgt...it may have taken a while but we both know this war was years in the making. There has been plenty of time to make plans for life after Saddam. Also, this nation can send men to the moon (and beyond) - I don't think bringing in experts in specific fields and asking them to draw up plans for Iraqi reconstruction is beyond us.

Right back to my point. With all the professionals involved do you really think that they aren't thinking of everything? We are also talking about government contracts to hundreds of different companies. Perhaps it would have been better to go with one single company, but then, as we did with "Haliburton," the cries from our left would have been heard throughout the land. (Besides that, good luck finding a single company that can do all the utility and power requirements needed.)

You're just not understanding the situation inside this environment.

Very true gy...but like I've already said our lack of forsesight in relation to the insurgency was a major mistake. It really should have been forecast by the 'experts'.

Well, like other mistakes that have been made, it wasn't. To be fair, the insurgency wasn't an immediate thing either. There wasn't some grand scheme. It really doesn't matter today does it? It is what it is.

Not really, if you can show me a state where democracy and extreme religion have been able to mix well I might believe it will eventually happenbut just looking at the events in Iraq this week tells us that religion is always more important. The Iraqi President (or whatever his title is) goes on TV and appeals for calm. Result = Nothing. The unelected religious leaders ask for calm and hey presto attacks or down (although not stopped). I don't think there's any real debate about who has the 'power'.

There isn't one. Pakistan has been the greatest disappointment among the major states that tried democracy. It should have been a contender, having begun its nationhood with a legacy of British legal traditions, an educated political class and a vigorous press. Instead, Pakistan became a swamp of corruption, demagogy and hatred feuled on by religion.

This does not mean that the Islamic world is forever doomed to be oppressed under dictators and religious zealots. I've said it before..."The only thing that will fix the Islamic world is Muslims." That role is reserved for them alone. Just like the western world and Christianity, we had to break through our dark age. It wasn't that long ago that our world wasn't controlled through democracies either. Islam is going through their dark age. The dangers in this is that this is the nuclear age. We cannot afford to "stand by."

Like S Arabia you mean? Still no pressure on it to reform. Maybe it has to produce 3 Osama's and AQ terrorists group before we take action? Also I'm not sure we are in Sudan. As regards Afghanistan there was no talk of military action against the Taleban (they were over visiting the whitehouse prior to sep 11) until they refused to hand over Osama. Maybe we should have taken action against this ideology before it struck first?

The "House of Saud" is a problem all to itself. The sad truth is, that as long as the oil flows and we need it, we are sworn to protect those bazaars of terror. Whatever "pressure" that is applied will be through closed door diplomacy. No other Arab or other Islamic state has made a serious effort to interfere with Osama bin Laden or his confederates; on the contrary, many are quietly gleeful at American suffering, even while professing their "deepest sympathies," and elements within Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have provided funding or other support for anti-American terrorism. We know this and they know we need their oil.

Yes, we are in Sudan. U.S. Marines and German troops cross the border from Chad and Ethiopia to near villages to interrupt cleansings. The violence in Sudan is being contained.

Exactly. The U.S. military, social experts, Middle East experts, CIA, international intelligencia, and scholars of Islam have been warning about this since the Reagan era. They were all ignored by Presidents of both parties. 9/11 woke our government up to the crazed "warmongering" warnings. I might also add (as 'oldreliable' eliquently stated in another thread) that Churchill was seen as a panic stricken warmonger as Hitler was building his forces for the 4 or 5 years prior to the Poland invasion.

Yes, you can get more security if you build walls around entire cities, impose daylight curfues and ban traffic. I just don't think thats a realistic long term strategy. And if the only thing that will fix the muslim world is Muslims what the heck are we doing over there?

Giving this region a democratic opportunity to correct itself before mushroom clouds brighten their horizons. 70 percent of the Iranian population is under thirty years old and they are disenchanted with their Mullahs and government. They want a legitimate democracy. Reformist in Syria are being imprisoned for speaking out for change in their country. They agree with Bush's sense of change, but they do not want American boots on their ground. The Jordanian King wishes a mnore democtratic government for his country. In the middle of all of this mess was Saddam Hussein brutalizeing and terrorizing his population. Saddam is now gone. This is a pretty big inspiration of hope for the rest of the Middle East.

As I said, we can only provide a bike. It is up to themn to take the training wheel off. Success or failure will ultimately be on the Islamic world.

Well only today 50+ died in car bombings and several UK soldiers have been killed. Didn't hear about anything similar in the US. N.B Today is not an exception to the general mayhem. We could probably pick any day from the last fortnight and get a similar result.

Well, it is a war zone. And Muslims are slaughtering Muslims. This is a huge factor when considering that contractors are trying to create power grids and water lines.

If civil war is what the Sunni are determined to have, because they are unable to accept that they are now equal to Shi'ites and Kurds, then this what they will get. The people of Iraq have tasted freedom through elections. Never before in the Muslim world have they been able to vote on the laws that would govern them. They will not easily surrender back to Sunni oppression.

That may be so but I don't think its right. Perhaps if more of us complained about it politicians would change their ways. They won't if nobody says nothing.

Well, good luck with this.

So when Bremner (who was in charge of Iraq at the time) said he wanted several thousand more troops in the country (hundreds of thousands I think) after analysing the situation and the whitehouse said no that was not political interference?

Who the hell is Bremner?

You will find plenty of 'Army' Generals throwing their opinions around. Most of them are slaves to political masters. For every Army General that has an opinion there is another with the opposite. Besides that, asking for more troops is a political issue. We are talking about when to send them home, not to bring more in.

 

[MSgt]

Well targeting a people because of their religion is genocide. Are you saying that its only genocide if you kill 10,000 people or maybe you have to kill 100,000 people I don't know?

Genocide is a wide mass of death of a single people. Not a bunch of violence tossed about sporadically.

Again you can't back this up. How many US/Iraqi forces were killed by the insurgency in Jan last year and how many in Jan this year? Of course US numbers will go down, we're pulling off the streets and back into our bases provding support when required to Iraqi forces. The Iraq army is now bearing the brunt of insurgent attacks, but like I said we don't count how many of them die so how can we establish if its getting better or not?

What do you mean I can't back it up? It is fuccking fact. There is a difference between an insurgent and a local Sunni fighter. They were collaborating until last fall. That began to change when the insurgent element began slaughtering Sunni civilians. There was a time when they were fighting each other. Now they simply ignore each other.

Also, the Iraqi forces are only acting as primaries in the cities. In the outlying places, where the "insurgents are being hunted down, it is U.S. Marines.

Where do you get your nonesense?

I don't need to go there to see there's no security, no jobs, poverty, lack of power etc etc. These are what I would use to measure progress..not the voting in of a powerless and corrupt govt.

All you need it the headlines. Dead civillian and no power in this part of the city -versus- new school and power in that part of the city. I believe our media knows where the money is.

Thats my point gy..something has to change. What we are doing and what we have tried has not worked. Time for some new ideas.

Well pass them on. Maybe as an electrician, plumber, tactician, or a DOD contractor you can supply some wisdom.

 

[ProudAmerican]

All you need it the headlines. Dead civillian and no power in this part of the city -versus- new school and power in that part of the city. I believe our media knows where the money is.

no doubt. well said.

 

[oldreliable67]

Back to the topic of this thread: better or worse since 2003?

Just a few years ago, Iraq was a kleptocracy where the ruling elites prospered while food shortages, crushing debt, unemployment and hyperinflation plagued the mass of people. Today, Iraq's leadership is moving the economy in the right direction, despite the challenges of an extremely difficult security environment, and we all stand to gain by supporting their efforts.

According to Robert Kimmit,

"Today, Iraqi per capita income should soon exceed $1,000 -- nearly double the level in 2003. More than 30,000 new businesses have been registered and many have set up shop. Today in Iraq there are more than three million cell phone subscribers. In 2003 there were virtually none. Iraqi students now carry laptops that connect at Internet cafés to the world's Web sites and libraries where before they had to rely on pencils, slide rules and outdated -- often censored -- school textbooks."

Did we make mistakes in planning and preparation? Yes, of course. Did we make erroneous assumptions? Yes, of course. Should those mistakes and erroneous assumptions persuade us to abandon our efforts? Of course not.

A free and prosperous Iraq is in everyone's interest: Its citizens will have an increasing stake in the success of their democracy and in preserving stability, thereby draining the influence of radicals and spurring economic activity throughout one of the world's most vital regions.

 

[G-Man]

What do you mean I can't back it up? It is fuccking fact. There is a difference between an insurgent and a local Sunni fighter. They were collaborating until last fall. That began to change when the insurgent element began slaughtering Sunni civilians. There was a time when they were fighting each other. Now they simply ignore each other.

Also, the Iraqi forces are only acting as primaries in the cities. In the outlying places, where the "insurgents are being hunted down, it is U.S. Marines.

Where do you get your nonesense?

If you bothered to read the post you would see I'm refering to casualities of the Iraqi police and army - not the insurgents/terrorists/sunnis/whoevers.

You say the insurgency is falling but how do we know? The question I asked was how many Iraqi Army/Police are dieing now, as opposed to this time last year? I'll say that again so you get it....how many Iraqi ARMY/POLICE are being killed by the insurgents/terrorists?

US casualities are going down because they are being replaced by Iraqi forces (as they should be) on the streets. But if we don't keep a record of attacks against the Iraqi POLICE and ARMY (and the fatalities suffered) we won't know if its getting better or not.

Perhaps you should read the post before insulting people?

 

[teacher]

I don't get it G-man. Seems you're saying we should have anticipated the troubles here more. A valid point but still blames the administration for not being friggin psychic. For not being prepared for what they didn't know. We don't know what the DOW is gonna do tomorrow. How can we know what a country oppressed for decades will do. This is a new and fluid situation if there ever was one. The troops on the ground there are very upbeat. Who knows better than them? The most recent Frontline explained the various factions in Iraq. Just as Gunny said. When we get out there is gonna be a whole lot less fighting.

Infrastructure, economy, business, bla bla bla. It will all get there and is. GySgt proved that.

But I haven't seen this point on this thread. Consider the opinion of half the Iraqi population. I wonder if the women think it better or worse? You can judge progress by kilowatts per household. I'll judge it by per capita government sanctioned public beatings of women with sticks.

 

[MSgt]

If you bothered to read the post you would see I'm refering to casualities of the Iraqi police and army - not the insurgents/terrorists/sunnis/whoevers.

......oh.

You say the insurgency is falling but how do we know? The question I asked was how many Iraqi Army/Police are dieing now, as opposed to this time last year? I'll say that again so you get it....how many Iraqi ARMY/POLICE are being killed by the insurgents/terrorists?

I do not know the figures of that. However, I do know that the recruitment lines are still strong. No matter what, the terrorists and the local Sunni fighters are losing. As long as the Iraqi people continue to defy every bit of violence, their would be oppressors will lose. All they need to do is hang on. The "War on Terror" is a war of attrition. One where one side will outlast the other. As long as the deaths remain overwhelmingly on the other side, we will win. The same goes with Iraq. How ever many Iraqi police and soldiers are dieing it is no where near the death toll of their enemies.

US casualities are going down because they are being replaced by Iraqi forces (as they should be) on the streets. But if we don't keep a record of attacks against the Iraqi POLICE and ARMY (and the fatalities suffered) we won't know if its getting better or not.

They do keep a track of that. Either way we know it is getting better, because of the type of attacks. We do not see the the common "platoon" level attacks from the insurgency anymore. Instead we see the occasional squad size element or a lone boomber. The suicide bombings continue, but they haven't deterred Iraq's new government, nor have they been able to stop the Coalition and Iraq's expanding forces from cleaning out one terrorist rat's nest after another. Their numbers are definately much smaller and Islam's leaders are running out of bodies to throw to the sacrifice.

Perhaps you should read the post before insulting people?

I did read you post. It did imply a different angle than this one.

 

[MSgt]

I don't get it G-man. Seems you're saying we should have anticipated the troubles here more. A valid point but still blames the administration for not being friggin psychic. For not being prepared for what they didn't know. We don't know what the DOW is gonna do tomorrow. How can we know what a country oppressed for decades will do. This is a new and fluid situation if there ever was one. The troops on the ground there are very upbeat. Who knows better than them? The most recent Frontline explained the various factions in Iraq. Just as Gunny said. When we get out there is gonna be a whole lot less fighting.

Infrastructure, economy, business, bla bla bla. It will all get there and is. GySgt proved that.

But I haven't seen this point on this thread. Consider the opinion of half the Iraqi population. I wonder if the women think it better or worse? You can judge progress by kilowatts per household. I'll judge it by per capita government sanctioned public beatings of women with sticks.

Any civilization that denies half of their population the opportunity to contribute to their society cannot possibly compete with any other civilization.

 

[G-Man]

I don't get it G-man. Seems you're saying we should have anticipated the troubles here more. A valid point but still blames the administration for not being friggin psychic. For not being prepared for what they didn't know. We don't know what the DOW is gonna do tomorrow. How can we know what a country oppressed for decades will do. This is a new and fluid situation if there ever was one. The troops on the ground there are very upbeat. Who knows better than them? The most recent Frontline explained the various factions in Iraq. Just as Gunny said. When we get out there is gonna be a whole lot less fighting.

Infrastructure, economy, business, bla bla bla. It will all get there and is. GySgt proved that.

But I haven't seen this point on this thread. Consider the opinion of half the Iraqi population. I wonder if the women think it better or worse? You can judge progress by kilowatts per household. I'll judge it by per capita government sanctioned public beatings of women with sticks.

Apologies teacher, I think the thread has drifted slightly away from the topic with my last couple of posts.

The point was to question the progress made since the end of the war and the abilities of our govt. in 'running the show'.

As regards the 'insurgency' I don't think you needed to be psychic to foresee there would be some form of resistance after the fall of Saddam - it was the lack of planning to deal with it which I think was incorrect. Issues such as 'sacking' the entire police force and army was clearly not an intelligent choice.

I agree with everyone here that this is a job which we have to do right and I personally have no desire to see chaos prevail.

Its just that I don't have faith in the abilities of this administration to make the right decisions and make progress. I feel a more competent govt. could have made far greater strides in Iraq and maybe even avoided some of the current problems. Thats all.

I ain't arguing about what we have to do...I just don't think we have the best/right people for the job.

 

[G-Man]

Back to the topic of this thread: better or worse since 2003?

Just a few years ago, Iraq was a kleptocracy where the ruling elites prospered while food shortages, crushing debt, unemployment and hyperinflation plagued the mass of people. Today, Iraq's leadership is moving the economy in the right direction, despite the challenges of an extremely difficult security environment, and we all stand to gain by supporting their efforts.

According to Robert Kimmit,

"Today, Iraqi per capita income should soon exceed $1,000 -- nearly double the level in 2003. More than 30,000 new businesses have been registered and many have set up shop. Today in Iraq there are more than three million cell phone subscribers. In 2003 there were virtually none. Iraqi students now carry laptops that connect at Internet cafés to the world's Web sites and libraries where before they had to rely on pencils, slide rules and outdated -- often censored -- school textbooks."

Did we make mistakes in planning and preparation? Yes, of course. Did we make erroneous assumptions? Yes, of course. Should those mistakes and erroneous assumptions persuade us to abandon our efforts? Of course not.

A free and prosperous Iraq is in everyone's interest: Its citizens will have an increasing stake in the success of their democracy and in preserving stability, thereby draining the influence of radicals and spurring economic activity throughout one of the world's most vital regions.

Old, you are going back to Saddams time again. Thats not part of what I was saying. I'm only asking about the time since the end of the war till now.

Everyone agrees we want to make a success of Iraq now we are there - I'm certainly not debating otherwise.

Its just that, as mentioned by yourself, we (or the govt. really) has made serious mistakes when dealing with the situation. I feel progress is no-where near what it should be as a result of these mistakes.

I further feel that they lack the abilities to deal with the wider problems and 'end' the ideological conflict. The only idea they have for dealing with terrorists is to face them on the battlefield (nothing wrong with that) but I would like to see an approach where we tackle the reasons behind the terrorism - so we don't have to face future generations of terrorists. This aspect seems oblivious to the present admin.

Bush/Republicans are most certainly the first to try and tackle the problem (although that is only because 9/11 happened - prior to that both parties had been content to ignore the future problems) but it doesn't make them the only candidates for the task. Just because they are doing what is required it does not mean that we should not question their abilities. Why should we settle for incompetents? (Although that is merely my own opinion and if you are happy in the belief that they could not possibly have done any better then we'll just have to agree to disagree!)

 

[MSgt]

Old, you are going back to Saddams time again. Thats not part of what I was saying. I'm only asking about the time since the end of the war till now.

Everyone agrees we want to make a success of Iraq now we are there - I'm certainly not debating otherwise.

Its just that, as mentioned by yourself, we (or the govt. really) has made serious mistakes when dealing with the situation. I feel progress is no-where near what it should be as a result of these mistakes.

I further feel that they lack the abilities to deal with the wider problems and 'end' the ideological conflict. The only idea they have for dealing with terrorists is to face them on the battlefield (nothing wrong with that) but I would like to see an approach where we tackle the reasons behind the terrorism - so we don't have to face future generations of terrorists. This aspect seems oblivious to the present admin.

Bush/Republicans are most certainly the first to try and tackle the problem (although that is only because 9/11 happened - prior to that both parties had been content to ignore the future problems) but it doesn't make them the only candidates for the task. Just because they are doing what is required it does not mean that we should not question their abilities. Why should we settle for incompetents? (Although that is merely my own opinion and if you are happy in the belief that they could not possibly have done any better then we'll just have to agree to disagree!)

There is no argument here. However, the emboldened part is not accurate to the situation. This problem we are facing will not end anytime soon no matter who is in charge. You have to understand that there is no blue print for this. In past history, civilizations tore themselves apart over religious and other issues and from the ashes history moved on. We cannot afford to allow this to happen in this day and age. We must be pro-active and we must invent our success along the way. This means a lot of tripping. There should be short-term and long-term goals. We are attacking the short-term goals. However, while we are touching on some of the long-term issues, we aren't doing nearly enough (We can only do so much at one time). This will probably be reserved for future administrations. Some thoughts...

* Short Term Solution - Radical Islam is a precursor to terrorism. It lays the ideological and religious foundation for Islamic-inspired violence and, as such, represents a long-term threat to the national security of the United States of America. The ongoing Global War on Terrorism targets the current generation of terrorists; however, unless the ideology that spawned them is also countered the long-term threat to the U.S. will exponentially grow with time.

* Long Term Solution - Thus, when dealing with a culture in which only faith and family matter to our enemies, we insist on making war on governments and negotiating with political organizations that are no more than mobs with diplomatic representation. When doing this, we are punching thin air. Note...Some of these are active operations and some are general sentiments of the intel community.

a - Acknowledge the threat posed by Radical Islam.

b - We are not targeting Islam, just the Radical Islamists – we better say so.

c - Support the moderate voices (indirectly).

d - Focus our efforts on the long term enemy = the creation of more Radical Islamists.

e - Garner worldwide support for this effort…..and at least engage in the IO war more aggressively. Counter Al Jazeera and like Radical Islamic media….without appearing to do so.

f - Designate DOS (Department of State) as lead agency against countering Radical Islam.

g - Following recognition of the threat – fund the programs necessary to counter it.

h - Reorganize foreign assistance funding and efforts creating DOS "Regional Directors" that actually control assets = Reorganize DOS along Geographical vice Functional Lines (much like DoD Combatant CDRs).

i - Review Current Foreign Policy Focusing on Taking the Political Ammunition Away From the Radical Extremists.

j - Resolve Israeli / Palestinian and Indian / Pakistani disputes.

k - We must succeed in both Afghanistan and Iraq….and ensure these are perceived as successes in the Muslim world.

l - Counter Radical Islamic Media = Counter Al Jazeera and like Radical Islamic media….without appearing to do so.

m - Reestablish funding for cultural outreach programs cut following end of "Cold War."

n - Give voice to moderate Islamic leaders (indirectly).

o - Support Programs Dedicated to Providing Educational Reform in Threatened Countries. (The official Saudi newspaper, Ain Al-Yaqeen, described royal expenditures on “education” as “astronomical.” (Mar 2002) They built 1500 mosques, 202 colleges, and 2000 Muslim schools. These were established throughout non-Islamic countries in Europe, North and South America, Australia, and Asia. None in the Middle East.)

p - Governments with strong governmental oversight over the education of their young must be rewarded; likewise those that do not provide such oversight must be punished.

q - AT HOME = Constitutional / Legal Review of activities surrounding fundamentalist religions that pose a domestic threat, – we face a new threat and our legal system is ill equipped to handle it. (Many Americans would rather recognize their freedom to preach hate a spit venom above protecting their own asses from the repercussions of it.)

 

[kal-el]

Is Iraq better or worse off from us interupting their daily lives? Let's see here-
before this so called, "war", they had 1)running water, 2)a functioning army and a competent police force, 3) the police could actually go to work without the little atomic thing like having to worry about being blown up, 4)Iraqi's could afford to heat their homes, and fill up their gas tanks, 5)they had a functioning medical staff. It is not debateable that Iraq is the central front on terrorism now, but in 2003, it was not.

 

[MSgt]

Is Iraq better or worse off from us interupting their daily lives? Let's see here-
before this so called, "war", they had 1)running water, 2)a functioning army and a competent police force, 3) the police could actually go to work without the little atomic thing like having to worry about being blown up, 4)Iraqi's could afford to heat their homes, and fill up their gas tanks, 5)they had a functioning medical staff. It is not debateable that Iraq is the central front on terrorism now, but in 2003, it was not.

Where better? All of the Middle East is a problem.