Reid: Someone Tell Bush the War in Iraq is Lost

[faminedynasty]

No our troops are not idiots. However, they also know that until their Commander in Chief gives them different orders, they are to do their jobs to the best of their ability. Now, having said that, our troops ALSO have feelings. They are human after all, not killing machines as some have described them. All this partisan nonsense gets to them in a BIG way, and all one has to do is talk to a returning soldier to find this out.

The feeling of everyone I know in the military is that the sooner they are out of Iraq the better. And the more pressure there is on the President to get out of Iraq, the more likely that is to happen. And the sooner people accept the fact that the war isn't going to be won if we just sacrifice a few thousand more American lives, the more pressure there will be on the President. So again, I have no problem with Reid or anyone else telling the truth. Even if the truth is a nasty thing.

 

[Navy Pride]

The feeling of everyone I know in the military is that the sooner they are out of Iraq the better. And the more pressure there is on the President to get out of Iraq, the more likely that is to happen. And the sooner people accept the fact that the war isn't going to be won if we just sacrifice a few thousand more American lives, the more pressure there will be on the President. So again, I have no problem with Reid or anyone else telling the truth. Even if the truth is a nasty thing.

Thank God the people you know are in the very small minority.....

 

[RightinNYC]

You would love that as it would ensure a democratic president........Bloomberg can not win.......

You think bberg would draw more votes from the Reps than from the Dems?

He's the mayor of one of the most left-leaning cities in the country, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gun control. I think if he ends up running and hurting a candidate, it'd be the Dem before it'd be the Rep. (Completely depends on who the other two candidates were, of course).

 

[Cremaster77]

No third party candidate can win......This is only a ploy to get one to run so Hillarry can be elected like "Slick Willie" was in 1992.......

Or like Bush in 2000....

 

[Kandahar]

No third party candidate can win......This is only a ploy to get one to run so Hillarry can be elected like "Slick Willie" was in 1992.......

Why would you assume that Hillary would win if Bloomberg ran? He'd take votes away from her. He's to the left of most of the Democrats running for President. The only Republican he might take votes from would be Rudy Giuliani, but I doubt he'll run at all if Rudy wins the nomination.

 

[RightinNYC]

No third party candidate can win......This is only a ploy to get one to run so Hillarry can be elected like "Slick Willie" was in 1992.......

Bloomberg never voted for the war like Hillary. That alone will win him plaudits from a significant chunk of the far left.

 

[RightinNYC]

Why would you assume that Hillary would win if Bloomberg ran? He'd take votes away from her. He's to the left of most of the Democrats running for President. The only Republican he might take votes from would be Rudy Giuliani, but I doubt he'll run at all if Rudy wins the nomination.

exactly

.

 

[oldreliable67]

That is somewhat speculative

How so? The Al Qaeda in Iraq "shadow cabinet" was on al Jazeera and other ME TV. The chlorine gas attacks are a fact.

...and presumes that most Iraqis will support Al-queda's agenda.

Where is this presumption?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Heard this today on the radio:

Reid, et al, have Iraqnaphobia:

The abject fear and loathing of the mere possibility that we will win in Iraq.

Thus, they do everything they can to make sure we don't.

 

[Kandahar]

The abject fear and loathing of the mere possibility that we will win in Iraq.

In what universe is that still a possibility? How do you define winning in Iraq anyway?

 

[M14 Shooter]

In what universe is that still a possibility? How do you define winning in Iraq anyway?

Um... in -this- universe.

Personally, I define it as where the situation in iraq is stable enough that the Iraqi government, with its own resources, can maintain security to the point where we are no longer needed.

No reason to believe that will NEVER happen.

But, there are people, previously named, that dont WANT that to happen.

 

[Kandahar]

Um... in -this- universe.

Personally, I define it as where the situation in iraq is stable enough that the Iraqi government, with its own resources, can maintain security to the point where we are no longer needed.

No reason to believe that will NEVER happen.

But, there are people, previously named, that dont WANT that to happen.

Well as long as we are going to continually lower the bar for what constitutes a victory, let's at least lower it to the point where we might actually meet expectations: A stable Kurdistan, and an Arab Iraq that hates us slightly less than Iran does and isn't a puppet of Iran.

That's a goal that we can realistically meet (we already have). If we were able to stabilize Iraq by pure military force, it would have happened by now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well as long as we are going to continually lower the bar for what constitutes a victory, let's at least lower it to the point where we might actually meet expectations:

I'm not sure how this is lowering the bar -- a self-sustaining, democtratic Iraqi goverment was always part of how 'victory' was defined.

What else might you suggest?

 

[Kandahar]

I'm not sure how this is lowering the bar -- a self-sustaining, democtratic Iraqi goverment was always part of how 'victory' was defined.

Ah, you didn't include the word "democratic" above. So that is also part of victory? Anything else?

What else might you suggest?

Like I said, I suggest lowering the bar even more, to the description I listed above.

The point is that the original plan for "victory" was a liberal democracy, free of terrorism, that would be a shining example to the rest of the Middle East. Instead, we're trying (and failing) to prevent a total train wreck.

Unfortunately, the bar doesn't seem to get lowered until AFTER the situation has already degraded to the point where even the lesser goal is impossible. So let's lower it now when we can still meet the goal, declare victory, and get out.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ah, you didn't include the word "democratic" above. So that is also part of victory? Anything else?

Sorry. Thought that was assumed.

Like I said, I suggest lowering the bar even more, to the description I listed above.

Why is that necessary?
Seems to me its perfectly possible to achieve the goal I mentioned.

But, as i said:

There are people, previously named, that dont WANT that to happen.

You DO agree to that, yes?

The point is that the original plan for "victory" was a liberal democracy, free of terrorism, that would be a shining example to the rest of the Middle East. Instead, we're trying (and failing) to prevent a total train wreck.

Hmm. Is this a strawman or an exaggeration?
I'll consider it an exaggeration.
I dont believe anyone mentioned "free of terrorism, that would be a shining example to the rest of the Middle East" as part of our original objective.

 

[Kandahar]

Sorry. Thought that was assumed.

Why is that necessary?
Seems to me its perfectly possible to achieve the goal I mentioned.

Then why has there been little to no improvement thus far? And what evidence is there that these problems are being addressed, and we won't continue to make the same mistakes?

But, as i said:

There are people, previously named, that dont WANT that to happen.

You DO agree to that, yes?

I'd imagine that a lot of the insurgents probably don't want that, yes.

Hmm. Is this a strawman or an exaggeration?
I'll consider it an exaggeration.
I dont believe anyone mentioned "free of terrorism, that would be a shining example to the rest of the Middle East" as part of our original objective.

CNN.com - Bush: Democratic Iraq could be 'inspiring example' - Feb. 27, 2003

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then why has there been little to no improvement thus far? And what evidence is there that these problems are being addressed, and we won't continue to make the same mistakes?

Since the new plan was put in place, it appears things have been improving.

I'd imagine that a lot of the insurgents probably don't want that, yes.

Funny... I didnt mention insurgents...

But...
Would you also agree that there are people in the US, specifically, certain elected members of a political party that uses a jackass as its symbol, that also do not want to see us win?

CNN.com - Bush: Democratic Iraq could be 'inspiring example' - Feb. 27, 2003

"but a new Iraq could serve as 'a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom'"

This does not set this as a goal or a condition of victory.

 

[MSgt]

Reid is stupid.

Only Iraqis will determine that the war is lost long after we have left. It is up to them. The problem people like Reid have is that they do not possess the mental ability to even hope to understand exactly what is going on and therefore haven't the ability to properly define success and defeat.

There will be no table of truce. No meeting where the enemy surrenders. And there will be no oppossing force that lays down weapons. This is not that kind of war.

The only thing that people can state with honesty after we have left is that we will have done our part and that we could have done it better. But ultimately, the rest is up to them.

 

[Kandahar]

Since the new plan was put in place, it appears things have been improving.

Only if you compare it to the exceptionally high level of casualties in October or December 2006. Excluding those months, the number of American casualties since the troop surge is about the same as (slightly higher than) it was last summer/fall...before the troop surge.

iCasualties: OIF US Fatalities by month

Funny... I didnt mention insurgents...

But...
Would you also agree that there are people in the US, specifically, certain elected members of a political party that uses a jackass as its symbol, that also do not want to see us win?

No.

"but a new Iraq could serve as 'a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom'"

This does not set this as a goal or a condition of victory.

It's certainly the unspoken implication. Bush never seemed to speculate on a long insurgency prior to the war. All of his speculations were of this sort.

 

[Kandahar]

There will be no table of truce. No meeting where the enemy surrenders. And there will be no oppossing force that lays down weapons. This is not that kind of war.

The only thing that people can state with honesty after we have left is that we will have done our part and that we could have done it better. But ultimately, the rest is up to them.

Exactly. So why not leave the rest up to them now, so that our soldiers can come home?

 

[MSgt]

Exactly. So why not leave the rest up to them now, so that our soldiers can come home?

Personally, I don't think it is quite time yet, but it is just about time. We've been at the beginning of the end for a few months. Currently, this surge was enough to allow some breathing room for their politicians to meet in order to deal with some issues between the sects. The latest issue that is coming to a close is the oil business and how it is to benefit the provinces. Their focus is on the economic securities and the community direction in regards to Islam (a Muslim government where Sunni and Shi'ite head in the same direction after 14 centuries is very important for the entire region...and the religion).

At this point, we have trained enough Iraqi troops to carry out their own security missions and they have even started training themselves. The Al-Queda presence is very minimal and has little to do with the insurgency anymore (though they will claim victory on the public stage like children when we leave).

Undoubtedly, violence will continue for some time after we leave as they adapt to vacuumes and seek traditional strong arming tactics, but this will die down gradually, because they love their children as much as we love ours. And we will be able to judge this with more honesty then. While everyone is focusing on Iraq now, we have to acknowledge that what is truly important is how it will emerge (unified or divided). Because of the split population between Sunni and Shi'ite, one way or the other it will affect the entire region.

 

[Iriemon]

I don't like using the term "winning" or "losing." We went to Iraq to for the WMDs and to take out Hussein. We were mistaken about WMDs, but took out Hussein.

We've tried, in a bungling way, to set up a new government. It's not a war in the sense we are fighting a nation but in trying to get a democratic government on its feet. Our goal was not to engage in a war with the Iraqi people or even a minority group of them. You do your best but at some point you say I've done my best, it's up to them, and its not worth maintaining the effort.

Using terms liking winning or losing have a certain black and white football game appeal. But by putting our effort in Iraq in terms of "winning" or "losing" with certain described conditions then the effort gets transformed from an effort to accomplish certain objectives to whether we have "won" or "lost".

We have accomplished our basic goals -- took out Saddam, confirmed no WMDs, and set up a new government. If based upon the circumstances the Iraqis do not want to accept our government that is up to them. It is costing too much to try to force them to accept a form of government if the majority are not willing to fight for it.

That ought to be the basis for our withdrawal, not saying we have lost. We ought to tell the Iraqi people that we are leaving in 6 months, and that if afterwards there is any kind of responsible government we will provide assistance and reparation for the damages caused by the mistake we made.

 

[Inuyasha]

Always listen to your father. Advice that George W Bush should have taken but didn't. Niw look where it's got us. here are some quotes by Bush 41 on Iraq. Surprising how many of the things have come true and in the process tarnish Bush 43 and the Bush family name. We did get Saddam though. Small reward when you really look around. I am still glad i voted twice for Bush 41 and here's why.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."
A World Transformed (1998) by George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft; also as an excerpt in Time Magazine in 1998.
"Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous. We don't gain the size of our victory by how many innocent kids running away — even though they're bad guys — that we can slaughter. ... We're American soldiers; we don't do business that way. "
A statement to a reunion of Gulf War veterans (February 28, 1999) as quoted in "Bush tells Gulf vets why Hussein left in Baghdad" by S.H. Kelly, Pentagram (March 3, 1999)

 

[debate_junkie]

The feeling of everyone I know in the military is that the sooner they are out of Iraq the better. And the more pressure there is on the President to get out of Iraq, the more likely that is to happen. And the sooner people accept the fact that the war isn't going to be won if we just sacrifice a few thousand more American lives, the more pressure there will be on the President. So again, I have no problem with Reid or anyone else telling the truth. Even if the truth is a nasty thing.

Well I would love to differ with you, as I live near Fort Indiantown Gap, where troops in this area who've been called for a tour/another tour of duty in Iraq leave, and where PA troops returning, come in to greet their families. I know alot of people up there, alot of soldiers, alot of PA National Guardsmen who think otherwise. And I will most certainly listen to the feel of soldiers, from soldiers, before I would someone who thinks it's appropriate to speak ill of their mission, which inevitably speaks ill of them.. because... and here's the part I don't want you to miss... THEY are the only one's fighting it.

 

[VTA]

The nation was as unified in purpose after 9-11 as it has ever been in recent memory. It probably had as more international support as well.

That unity and support was squandered by misrepresentations, mistakes, ommissions, intentional misimplication, and mismanagement with the Iraq war. The neocon/Bush Admin have only themselves to blame.

It might be Bush's job to convince everyone that what he's chosen is right, but recent history tells us that neither side can wash it's hands of this. Swaying with public opinion and pretending not to have been informed is a flimsy cover for all those once in favor, now trying to wash their hands of it.

Their mishandling of their grievances and constant grandstanding only goes further to divide the country.

As for the unity after 9/11, for it to take mass death on American soil to remember we're the United States, says alot about it's fickle nature. Not to mention that the mass discord, that swiftly ensued, among our citizens solidifies that notion. Sorry, no one gets a pass. Don't play into that divisive game, by trumpeting partisan catch phrases.

Necon, Liberal. What's the difference? Their lack of interest in the American people shows them to be cast from the same mold.