Staying "until the job is done" (1 Viewer)

[Kandahar]

We've all heard from the Bush Administration and various people on this forum that we need to stay in Iraq "until the job is done." But doesn't that imply that we're making some kind of progress?

An analysis released today indicates that the number of American deaths in Iraq have NOT slowed down in tandem with various political milestones, indicating that the insurgency is just as strong as ever.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20051026/ts_latimes/adeadlysurge

Tell me, pro-war people, what is the purpose of staying in the country if we aren't making any progress? "Staying the course" is not a strategy to winning the war, it's merely an act of stubbornness that gets more and more soldiers killed.

 

[FiremanRyan]

We've all heard from the Bush Administration and various people on this forum that we need to stay in Iraq "until the job is done." But doesn't that imply that we're making some kind of progress?

An analysis released today indicates that the number of American deaths in Iraq have NOT slowed down in tandem with various political milestones, indicating that the insurgency is just as strong as ever.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20051026/ts_latimes/adeadlysurge

Tell me, pro-war people, what is the purpose of staying in the country if we aren't making any progress? "Staying the course" is not a strategy to winning the war, it's merely an act of stubbornness that gets more and more soldiers killed.

have you completely ignored the fact that Iraqi's just voted on their constitution and Saddam is on trial right now? you dont call those milestones? besides that, a steady insurgency is just another reason why we shouldnt cut and run. if we did, we'd leave the country in the hands of these terrorists and Iraq would be just as worse off as it was to begin with.

dont get me wrong, i cringe at the fact that Americans have to die, but it would be completely irresponisble for us to just leave this infant democracy to its own devises. while you're checking statistics, why dont you look up the number of Iraqi security force units being trained by our soldiers on a monthly basis or the number of hospitals and schools being built.

im with a lot of you anti-war folk. although i supported this war and still do, i think we could be handling it in a more efficient manner. but that doesnt excuse the blantant spin being put on the issue to make it look like no progress is being made and that this is some kind of stalemate. so again, if you're in favor of leaving this half-finished and basically want to push Iraq off a cliff without a parachute, go ahead and keep fighting for a selfish withdraw.

 

[AK_Conservative]

We've all heard from the Bush Administration and various people on this forum that we need to stay in Iraq "until the job is done." But doesn't that imply that we're making some kind of progress?

An analysis released today indicates that the number of American deaths in Iraq have NOT slowed down in tandem with various political milestones, indicating that the insurgency is just as strong as ever.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20051026/ts_latimes/adeadlysurge

Tell me, pro-war people, what is the purpose of staying in the country if we aren't making any progress? "Staying the course" is not a strategy to winning the war, it's merely an act of stubbornness that gets more and more soldiers killed.

Death is a part of war. This war, from what we have accomplished from removing a regime and setting up, what hopefully will be a legitament and good government, and a new allie in the world is meaningful. Once we have been able to train the iraqi forces to the point where they can defend their own country, we will get out, though the "insugency" will still exist for a point beyond that.

The death toll, though tragic if ONE soldier dies, is minuscule compared to other wars, even the ones we did not accomplish our goal, i.e. korea and vietnam.

I believe, years from now, the US occupancy (if the iraq government is sustained and legit) will be looked upon as a good thing. But that wont be for years to come.

 

[AK_Conservative]

to add, if we pulled out now, what all these soldiers have died for will be lost in ruin. To stay the course, atleast their death's will be honored, even from the iraqq government!

 

[Kandahar]

have you completely ignored the fact that Iraqi's just voted on their constitution and Saddam is on trial right now? you dont call those milestones?

I do. The point is that even with democracy progressing, the insurgency hasn't died down. If our primary reason for still being in Iraq is to establish security (as opposed to democracy), we are failing.

besides that, a steady insurgency is just another reason why we shouldnt cut and run. if we did, we'd leave the country in the hands of these terrorists and Iraq would be just as worse off as it was to begin with.

That strategy assumes that our presence will reduce or eliminate the insurgency, while the evidence to this date does not support that conclusion.

dont get me wrong, i cringe at the fact that Americans have to die, but it would be completely irresponisble for us to just leave this infant democracy to its own devises. while you're checking statistics, why dont you look up the number of Iraqi security force units being trained by our soldiers on a monthly basis or the number of hospitals and schools being built.

I don't deny that there are some good things happening in Iraq. But we have been told by our government that the reason we are still there is to fight terrorism, not to build hospitals and schools.

im with a lot of you anti-war folk. although i supported this war and still do, i think we could be handling it in a more efficient manner. but that doesnt excuse the blantant spin being put on the issue to make it look like no progress is being made and that this is some kind of stalemate.

The study released today indicated that the number of American deaths per day has not significantly declined. This indicates to me that it IS a stalemate.

so again, if you're in favor of leaving this half-finished and basically want to push Iraq off a cliff without a parachute, go ahead and keep fighting for a selfish withdraw.

If Iraq has already jumped off a cliff without a parachute and there's no chance that we can toss them one, is it really advisable to jump off with them?

 

[Kandahar]

Death is a part of war. This war, from what we have accomplished from removing a regime and setting up, what hopefully will be a legitament and good government, and a new allie in the world is meaningful. Once we have been able to train the iraqi forces to the point where they can defend their own country, we will get out, though the "insugency" will still exist for a point beyond that.

The death toll, though tragic if ONE soldier dies, is minuscule compared to other wars, even the ones we did not accomplish our goal, i.e. korea and vietnam.

You're right that the death toll is a lot lower than in those wars. However, we aren't fighting against global superpowers or their proxy armies in Iraq. Furthermore, the death toll in Iraq bears one similarity to those: it is not declining, indicating that we aren't making much progress militarily.

to add, if we pulled out now, what all these soldiers have died for will be lost in ruin. To stay the course, atleast their death's will be honored, even from the iraqq government!

I don't think that's a very good justification for war. Using past mistakes to justify making more mistakes is generally not a good idea.

 

[FiremanRyan]

I do. The point is that even with democracy progressing, the insurgency hasn't died down. If our primary reason for still being in Iraq is to establish security (as opposed to democracy), we are failing.

your right, which is why i said two things...1. i think this war should be re-evaluated and handled more efficiently to succeed in defeating the insurgents, and 2. a steady number of insurgent attacks is just another reason to remain in Iraq because their security forces arent able to combat these terrorists yet. but even you can admit that 'democracy is progressing' so you cant truely believe that 'we arent making any progress.

That strategy assumes that our presence will reduce or eliminate the insurgency, while the evidence to this date does not support that conclusion.

just like what i said above, we need to pull our heads out of our asses and focus on training Iraqi's to do the job themselves. that still doesnt mean we should cut and run.

I don't deny that there are some good things happening in Iraq. But we have been told by our government that the reason we are still there is to fight terrorism, not to build hospitals and schools.

not true. our government has clearly said that the stabilization of Iraq will aid in the war on terror, but never said it was our sole reason for being there. if anything, i think we've made our main reason for staying as long as we have to establish a solid democratic system of government, and access to schools and hospitals is clearly a part of a working democracy.

The study released today indicated that the number of American deaths per day has not significantly declined. This indicates to me that it IS a stalemate.

if it were a stalemate, we wouldnt have won the war and no government would be in developement. casualties are one of many factors when determining the progress of a war.

If Iraq has already jumped off a cliff without a parachute and there's no chance that we can toss them one, is it really advisable to jump off with them?

not quite. Iraq is on the edge right now as i see it. if we get our act together and maybe get some support from the rest of our country, we can equip them to make that leap on their own, hopefully sooner than later. but if we just give 'em a slap on the back and wish them luck while we pack up and leave, theres no doubt they'll crash and burn.

 

[Kandahar]

your right, which is why i said two things...1. i think this war should be re-evaluated and handled more efficiently to succeed in defeating the insurgents, and 2. a steady number of insurgent attacks is just another reason to remain in Iraq because their security forces arent able to combat these terrorists yet. but even you can admit that 'democracy is progressing' so you cant truely believe that 'we arent making any progress.

I guess we don't measure progress in the same way. The primary justification for spreading democracy under the barrel of a gun - according to George Bush - is because democracies are supposedly more peaceful than dictatorships. While this is true in the sense that democracies don't generally fight each other, it is not true in the sense of preventing terrorism (which is what we're really concerned with here). There's no evidence that the advancement of democracy will be accompanied with a decline in terrorism, and that's really the only justification to impose democracy on Iraq during an occupation. We can make emotional arguments about the ethics of allowing them to remain under a brutal dictatorship, but the American government/military has never really been concerned with that (nor should they be).

just like what i said above, we need to pull our heads out of our asses and focus on training Iraqi's to do the job themselves. that still doesnt mean we should cut and run.

I don't think it's that simple. We have some very intelligent people commanding our troops in Iraq, and they can't seem to figure it out. That indicates to me that the problem is more fundamental than simply needing to "pull our heads out of our asses."

not true. our government has clearly said that the stabilization of Iraq will aid in the war on terror, but never said it was our sole reason for being there. if anything, i think we've made our main reason for staying as long as we have to establish a solid democratic system of government, and access to schools and hospitals is clearly a part of a working democracy.

Let me ask it this way. Which of the following conditions would you consider more ripe for American withdrawal:

A) A neutral/friendly democracy that was still constantly being plagued by terrorist attacks.

B) A friendly dictatorship that was relatively terror-free.

if it were a stalemate, we wouldnt have won the war and no government would be in developement. casualties are one of many factors when determining the progress of a war.

The primary reason for staying in Iraq (for most people who support it) is the elimination of terrorism. The steady number of casualties indicates that we are not accomplishing that goal.

not quite. Iraq is on the edge right now as i see it. if we get our act together and maybe get some support from the rest of our country, we can equip them to make that leap on their own, hopefully sooner than later. but if we just give 'em a slap on the back and wish them luck while we pack up and leave, theres no doubt they'll crash and burn.

It seems to me that Iraq is already well past the edge. If we pack up and leave, there's a good chance that it would take a bite out of the insurgency. While I'm sure it wouldn't completely die overnight, it would take away the main reason that young Iraqis have for joining the insurgency.

 

[TimmyBoy]

We've all heard from the Bush Administration and various people on this forum that we need to stay in Iraq "until the job is done." But doesn't that imply that we're making some kind of progress?

An analysis released today indicates that the number of American deaths in Iraq have NOT slowed down in tandem with various political milestones, indicating that the insurgency is just as strong as ever.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20051026/ts_latimes/adeadlysurge

Tell me, pro-war people, what is the purpose of staying in the country if we aren't making any progress? "Staying the course" is not a strategy to winning the war, it's merely an act of stubbornness that gets more and more soldiers killed.

Anybody who has any tiny inkling of what war is, is not pro-war. I am not pro-war myself. Here is the reason why we should stay the course in Iraq:

Analysts Warn of Effects of Iraq Civil War By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent
Wed Oct 26, 8:21 AM ET

AMMAN, Jordan - Any all-out civil war in Iraq could shake the political foundations of places beyond that stricken land, sending streams of refugees across Iraqi borders, tempting neighbors to intervene, and renewing the half-buried old conflict of Sunni and Shiite in the Muslim world, Middle East analysts say.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_shock_waves

 

[Old and wise]

have you completely ignored the fact that Iraqi's just voted on their constitution and Saddam is on trial right now? you dont call those milestones?

And how about the fact that over 2000 Americans have died for nothing in this fiasco?
You call that a milestone also?

 

[imprtnrd]

I don't care if you stay "until the job is done" tactic but when ever we and other nations pull out you can expect another vietnam. Iraq will fall b/c there are too many insurgents around to keep things going. They come from Syria, Iran, Afganistan, Saudi Arabia.

 

[cnredd]

I wrote this a couple of months ago and kept it in my notepad for future reference....Like now, for instance...

Many believe that the reason Afghanistan turned into a Taliban-ruled
country was the fact that the US stopped supporting the Afghanis
after their defense against the Soviets.

When the Soviets retreated and the country was in shambles, the
warlords started to slice the country up and there were years of
"in-house" fighting; technically, it was a civil war with 50
opponents all against each other.

This was a perfect time for the Taliban way of thinking to step
in...This extremist organization went around this un-ruled country
and started imposing their Sharia law on everyone(no kites, no music,
executions a plenty). The general population felt doomed.

They looked to the US for help and accused us of abandoning them
...correctly, I might add. We stopped "meddling in their affairs",
which set the stage for the Taliban to accept Bin Laden and become
the ones that "harbored" terrorists.

Leaving Iraq now would result in the same scenario. The "insurgency"
against the US is not REALLY against the US. Its a power grab.
Certain factions...ones that even hate each other...are teaming
up because they know that if a democratic government becomes too
powerful, the insurgents attempt at grabbing this power will be lost.

That is why the US MUST make sure that the new government becomes
self-sufficient and legitimate. If we leave too early, the government
will crumble and set the stage for another "Taliban" to take over.

 

[getinvolved]

I have disagreed with this war since day one. But I also think that we have a certain level of responsibility to the people of Iraq. How can we leave now? WE have broken Iraq down to it's very core. To leave now would be a disaster.

 

[ShullsM]

As much as I don't necessarily agree with the war, I do agree that to withdraw from Iraq now would be irresponsbile. We have to stay until the country is stable. There is no way around it. Doesn't mean I don't continue to question the evidence and reasoning for entering in the first place.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I wrote this a couple of months ago and kept it in my notepad for future reference....Like now, for instance...

Many believe that the reason Afghanistan turned into a Taliban-ruled
country was the fact that the US stopped supporting the Afghanis
after their defense against the Soviets.

When the Soviets retreated and the country was in shambles, the
warlords started to slice the country up and there were years of
"in-house" fighting; technically, it was a civil war with 50
opponents all against each other.

This was a perfect time for the Taliban way of thinking to step
in...This extremist organization went around this un-ruled country
and started imposing their Sharia law on everyone(no kites, no music,
executions a plenty). The general population felt doomed.

They looked to the US for help and accused us of abandoning them
...correctly, I might add. We stopped "meddling in their affairs",
which set the stage for the Taliban to accept Bin Laden and become
the ones that "harbored" terrorists.

Leaving Iraq now would result in the same scenario. The "insurgency"
against the US is not REALLY against the US. Its a power grab.
Certain factions...ones that even hate each other...are teaming
up because they know that if a democratic government becomes too
powerful, the insurgents attempt at grabbing this power will be lost.

That is why the US MUST make sure that the new government becomes
self-sufficient and legitimate. If we leave too early, the government
will crumble and set the stage for another "Taliban" to take over.

Excellent post!

I would argue that one reason we haven't seen a decline in the insurgency is because our government is openly torturing prisoners. I wonder how many civilians have joined the insurgency for that reason alone.

 

[cnredd]

As much as I don't necessarily agree with the war, I do agree that to withdraw from Iraq now would be irresponsbile. We have to stay until the country is stable. There is no way around it. Doesn't mean I don't continue to question the evidence and reasoning for entering in the first place.

I have stated previously why....I won't "taint" this thread with it...

If you feel like it...read this...

 

[cnredd]

Excellent post!

I would argue that one reason we haven't seen a decline in the insurgency is because our government is openly torturing prisoners. I wonder how many civilians have joined the insurgency for that reason alone.

A) "Torturing prisoners" is open for interpretation...but more importantly...

B) It was far from OPEN...Torture or not, I doubt highly they wanted any info regarding this public...It's when the media took the story and ran with it portraying the WHOLE MILITARY as culprits of abuse that would have this increase in insurgency...

Remember...REGARDLESS of whether what was done is torture or not, Nick Berg would still be alive today if it wasn't made public...

 

[ShullsM]

I have stated previously why....I won't "taint" this thread with it...

If you feel like it...read this...

I'll take a look through it and comment. Thanks.

 

[FiremanRyan]

I have disagreed with this war since day one. But I also think that we have a certain level of responsibility to the people of Iraq. How can we leave now? WE have broken Iraq down to it's very core. To leave now would be a disaster.

As much as I don't necessarily agree with the war, I do agree that to withdraw from Iraq now would be irresponsbile. We have to stay until the country is stable. There is no way around it. Doesn't mean I don't continue to question the evidence and reasoning for entering in the first place.

exactly, you dont have to agree with this war to believe that pulling out would be a mistake.

 

[FiremanRyan]

Excellent post!

I would argue that one reason we haven't seen a decline in the insurgency is because our government is openly torturing prisoners. I wonder how many civilians have joined the insurgency for that reason alone.

something tells me that extremist muslims dont see our tactics as torture when theyre cutting westerners heads off with small knives or dragging their burnt bodys through the streets behind cars.

 

[Iriemon]

... - is because democracies are supposedly more peaceful than dictatorships. ....

Right! Democracies do not invade and occupy other countries based on a "pre-emptive" basis , err ... I mean they do not invade and occupy other countries based on "mistaken" pretexts ... no, wait, in a democracy, when a mistake has been made by the government, political pressure will cause the Govt to withdraw and pay for its mistake ... OK that is not it ... just give me a minute here ...