Question for the anti-war folks.

[ProfJohn]

There has been a lot of anti-AQ news coming out of Iraq lately. First it was Al Anbar, but now it seems to be spreading.

So I am wondering what the anti-war type?s make of this news.
Specifically the following questions.

Does this news give you any hope that we could ?win? in Iraq, or at least escape without losing?

Does this give you hope that would end or at least scale down our presence in Iraq in the near future?

Does this make you more patient in finding a resolution to Iraq? I.E. as long as we are making progress why not stay a little longer.

There are stories starting to emerge that maybe the Iraqis are finally starting to tire of all the bloodshed. And maybe we are nearing a point where we can finally make progress; yes I know we have said that before. Does that mean anything to you, or are we beyond that point?

It also seems evident that following the surge the US will start to cut back its forces in Iraq to maybe half the pre-surge level. What do you ?anti? types think of that?

Can we please stay away from the ?war of lies? types of comments? If you can?t address the point at hand find another thread. It would be nice if we could discuss the topic without the typical childish stuff.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There has been a lot of anti-AQ news coming out of Iraq lately. First it was Al Anbar, but now it seems to be spreading.

So I am wondering what the anti-war type?s make of this news.
Specifically the following questions.

Does this news give you any hope that we could ?win? in Iraq, or at least escape without losing?

Does this give you hope that would end or at least scale down our presence in Iraq in the near future?

Does this make you more patient in finding a resolution to Iraq? I.E. as long as we are making progress why not stay a little longer.

There are stories starting to emerge that maybe the Iraqis are finally starting to tire of all the bloodshed. And maybe we are nearing a point where we can finally make progress; yes I know we have said that before. Does that mean anything to you, or are we beyond that point?

It also seems evident that following the surge the US will start to cut back its forces in Iraq to maybe half the pre-surge level. What do you ?anti? types think of that?

Can we please stay away from the ?war of lies? types of comments? If you can?t address the point at hand find another thread. It would be nice if we could discuss the topic without the typical childish stuff.

As long as we stay more Americans will die. As long as we stay more Iraqis will be killed by Americans.

"Escaping without losing" is about saving political face on the domestic front. It is not reasonable approach to concluding our involvement in this war.

Bush's word on future troop strength is not to be trusted so there is no basis for reasonable discussion on that topic.

 

[fskimospy]

I personally hope that this recent good news leads somewhere. Past experience however tells me that this is unlikely. I mean, how many times have we heard that we've turned a corner due to this, or that... and it's been wrong every time. I believe that good news from Iraq is largely over reported because there are large numbers of people desperately searching on any given day for good news to report. Again though, I eagerly await more good news... that would be great because I think it would have our troops leave sooner. I just have very little faith in it.

I still believe that winning is not an option for us in Iraq. We will either "win" and prop up a pro-Iranian government in Iraq, or "lose" and have the country split apart. Both of these options seem equally bad, and so pretty much regardless of what happens in Iraq I think we should leave... because no good outcome is available to us.

Finally, people should simply ignore the talk of lowing troop levels. If you look back at previous years the plan of starting to bring the troops home in 6-8 months has been put out at a minimum of four times before, even more then that I think. There is simply no reason to believe that they are any more serious this time. I will believe troop reductions when I see them. We've been lied to so many times about this war I have zero faith in any statements made by our government officials on it.

I guess this is overwhelmingly negative towards Iraq, but I don't think I've been unfair in any of my estimates.

 

[ProfJohn]

I don?t recall the previous plans to draw down troops that you speak of.
Were they really ?plans? or just pie in the sky type of talks ?if this plan works we can draw down our troops? type comments.

One thing very different this time is the political reality of the situation.
Getting money for Iraq next year is going to be very difficult without some progress.
However, if there is a plan in place to bring home half the troops and get our men off the streets then the Democrats might be more willing to fund the war another year.

The whole Hillary Clinton plan from a few months ago was about the same idea. 50,000 troops training and supporting the Iraqi army and fighting AQ when they could. But NOT policing the streets of Baghdad.

 

[umbrella39]

Does this news give you any hope that we could ?win? in Iraq, or at least escape without losing? We lost the day we stepped foot in Iraq. There is no winning or losing this 'war', just bigger body counts.

Does this give you hope that would end or at least scale down our presence in Iraq in the near future? I would hope so but this country does not seem like it is ever going to meet OUR criteria for when this day will happen.

Does this make you more patient in finding a resolution to Iraq? I.E. as long as we are making progress why not stay a little longer. Fvck no. Who the hell are we (and by we, I don't mean me) to keep throwing American lives at this problem in the hopes that some day we "get it right". I truly despise people who think it is OK to keep having our loved ones die over there when they don't have any plans on standing alongside the same people they are condemning.

 

[tomywishbone]

We have invaded, occupied, and incinerated an innocent country. "Can we win?" Never, it can't even be "draw" like Vietnam.

Buster Douglas KO'ed Tyson and the USA has lost the Iraq war; those things happen.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There are stories starting to emerge that maybe the Iraqis are finally starting to tire of all the bloodshed.

Didn't realize they had been enjoying the bloodshed for the last 4 years.

To answer the virtually irreducible question of the OP; yes, it would be great if eveyone in Iraq held hands and sang Cumbaya. I would consider it a good thing.

 

[boredhokie]

Nobody likes Al Quaeda - second we leave there they'll be massacred or driven out of the country. However, there will still be a country in shambles, no central government, a civil war, "lost" oil profits, thousands of Americans killed or maimed, and many more thousands of Iraqi's killed - making way for a new generation of anti-Americanism.

Nice to see the silver lining there though!

 

[DaveSimmons]

It just means the factions there want to fight for power without us or AQ getting in their way. Unfortunately, it doesn't offer any new hope for preventing the civil war from growing.

The only thing I could see it offering is a face-saving way for the Bush administration to declare "victory" and get us out of there. Unfortunately, I don't see much hope of that either.

 

[PELarson]

Why am I reminded of the bank robber who stopped the mugger while leaving the bank he just robbed and then wondered why he was being arrested!

 

[jpeyton]

Insurgents will still attack the US and militias will still commit sectarian violence, regardless of whether al-Qaeda is there or not.

 

[GrGr]

Al Qaida is a foreign element in Iraq. There are not many of them - I've seen numbers like 1,000 fighters. The real opposition to the US invasion comes from the Iraqi people itself of course. That is true if Al Qaida is present in Iraq or not.

 

[StageLeft]

Considering AQ didn't have much of a presence there before, even if they're brought down, how is that winning? Wow, that koolaid must still taste good.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I don?t recall the previous plans to draw down troops that you speak of.

I am not surprised.

That's all you Republicans of this 2001 to now era have been doing is re-writing history to your own twisted agenda.

It's really sick and disgusting.

 

[Lemon law]

To a certain extent Al-Quida is taking a drubbing on all fronts. Al-Quida never had any real traction with the Shia in Iraq and I think the Sunni insurgency is becoming disenchanted with an Al-Quida agenda that does not act in the Sunni long term interests. In Israel and Palestinian areas, the AL-Quida backed Fatah party is being kicked by the Iranian influenced Hamas party and soon is likely to become extinct. Al-Quida is also losing ground in Somalia and this after Al-Quida came very close to taking over the entire. government.

At the same time, both Iran and Turkey are taking aggressive actions to rein in Kurdish terrorism with Turkey massing troops at the border. And Saudi Arabia is now in danger of becoming isolated by a spreading Shia curtain that can cut land bridges to other Sunni dominated neighbors. One joker in the deck now has to be the various Sunni leaders who may be deciding that Al-Quida is more a liability than a asset. But the homegrown Sunni insurgency is now entrenched and established. But is still dwarfed by the more numerically numerous Shia insurgency. In short, I think the total Iraqi insurgency is evolving but still setting on the fence. I very much doubt that the Sunni insurgency is going to change much if Al-Quida is expelled from Iraq. And if the Sunni leaders can get some temporary brownie points from the US as they get rid of Al-Quida, thats a double bonus.

But its somewhat bad news for the GWB&co. set of neocons who will no longer be able to argue that we are fighting Al-Quida over there rather than at home. The one thing that unifies the militia leaders of Iraq across the Sunni Shia divide is their opposition to a central government in Iraq.--A central government that must inevitably curb the power and influence of the militias and militia leaders. I think it very unlikely that Sunni tribal and militia leaders are going to have any trust in an Iraqi central government to protect them from the far more numerous Shia. And hence the Sunni must look to places like Saudi Arabia that is and may be in future ready to fund vast increases in heavier armanents. While the entire set of Iraq's neighbors look to who will make the first move. It would somewhat strain reality not to assume that many Of Iraq's neighbors have various contingency plans in place to advance their interests when and if certain things happen. And meanwhile the Sunni insurgency will continue on as before is my guess.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Does this make you more patient in finding a resolution to Iraq? I.E. as long as we are making progress why not stay a little longer.

Fvck no. Who the hell are we (and by we, I don't mean me) to keep throwing American lives at this problem in the hopes that some day we "get it right".

I truly despise people who think it is OK to keep having our loved ones die over there when they don't have any plans on standing alongside the same people they are condemning.

Amen

When is the OP going to post from Iraq?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn[/i]
I don?t recall the previous plans to draw down troops that you speak of.
Were they really ?plans? or just pie in the sky type of talks ?if this plan works we can draw down our troops? type comments.
Here you go.

It's from a left wing blog for sure, but the quotes are all directly linked from reputable news sources. And while a lot of the ideas floated were conditional... several definitely mentioned 'plans to reduce troop levels' that never panned out. The were certainly as credible as the 'concepts for reducing American forces' that they are claiming to be developing now.

 

[techs]

I was actually going to post something about this.
Truthfully, I suspect that its one of two things.
1) The Bushies have oredered the military to assume all enemy forces are AQ ( they already did something similiar a few years ago when they ordered to military to consider the war in Iraq part of the war on terror )
2) The military is limiting their targets to AQ and not Iraqi insurgents.

Of course we won't find this out for several months as the Bushies will try to keep it secret. Then the MSM will report it, the Bushies will say its a lie, and a few months later when there is overwhelming evidence and all rational people realize the Bushies lied you will make some excuse for the Bushies.

 

[mc00]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Does this news give you any hope that we could ?win? in Iraq, or at least escape without losing? We lost the day we stepped foot in Iraq. There is no winning or losing this 'war', just bigger body counts.

Does this give you hope that would end or at least scale down our presence in Iraq in the near future? I would hope so but this country does not seem like it is ever going to meet OUR criteria for when this day will happen.

Does this make you more patient in finding a resolution to Iraq? I.E. as long as we are making progress why not stay a little longer. Fvck no. Who the hell are we (and by we, I don't mean me) to keep throwing American lives at this problem in the hopes that some day we "get it right". I truly despise people who think it is OK to keep having our loved ones die over there when they don't have any plans on standing alongside the same people they are condemning.

I would have to disagree somewhat about "we" sending troop over there.. because I have good friend of mine he join national guard, and I ask why join he reply "oh because I'm bored I wanna experience war" so I reply "so you think war is like playing socom like we do heh?" probably most of this guys join go fight over there because 1. either they believe this war is valid 2. because they wanna experience it like my friend.

 

[MagicConch]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There has been a lot of anti-AQ news coming out of Iraq lately. First it was Al Anbar, but now it seems to be spreading.

So I am wondering what the anti-war type?s make of this news.
Specifically the following questions.

Does this news give you any hope that we could ?win? in Iraq, or at least escape without losing?

Does this give you hope that would end or at least scale down our presence in Iraq in the near future?

Does this make you more patient in finding a resolution to Iraq? I.E. as long as we are making progress why not stay a little longer.

There are stories starting to emerge that maybe the Iraqis are finally starting to tire of all the bloodshed. And maybe we are nearing a point where we can finally make progress; yes I know we have said that before. Does that mean anything to you, or are we beyond that point?

It also seems evident that following the surge the US will start to cut back its forces in Iraq to maybe half the pre-surge level. What do you ?anti? types think of that?

Can we please stay away from the ?war of lies? types of comments? If you can?t address the point at hand find another thread. It would be nice if we could discuss the topic without the typical childish stuff.

just my opinion

1) Enemy of our enemy is not our long-term friend in this cas. After they remove AQ from their country it will start a wave of 'expel USA as well who are also basically foreign invaders'

2) We need to stop looking at Iraq as winning and losing imo. We can leave today no matter what happens there. Democracy will definitely fail in Iraq, it's just a question of when. If that is the bar for when we can leave, we'll be there forever. Their culture, religion, and govt structure are tied closely together. People look at countries like Turkey as an example of what is possible but they don't get Turkey is an entirely different culture even though there are turks in iraq and both countries are Muslim. We need to get out, let the country implode, destablize the entire region, and then let Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait et al. bank the stablization.

3) resolution is a return to dictatorship, oppression of their people and us getting out of there.

4) they will never 'tire' of violence. we cannot look at these places like Western cultures. the only countries that tire of violence in the middle east are those that replace their need for violence with need for $, and even those muslim countries that are peaceful in the middle east are not democracies

5) the minute we cut back violence will appear to be stabilization, we will get out, it will destabilize again.

I think the best way to get out is stop avoiding the $ issue and find out how much money we need to give contractor's directly for Bush to agree to get us out of there, then install a semi-benevelont iran-hating dictator with some militia power, and then leave.

 

[SirStev0]

Heads up ProfJohn... if you want to make an absurd claim like that in your siggy... you may want to spellcheck it... makes you look just slightly loonier, as surprising as that may be.

With that being said... The reason A-Q is even in Iraq is because we are in Iraq. They are there adding to their numbers and gaining support. Yes, it is great we are stopping them, but this war has been a failure. The loses significantly outnumber any gains. We are creating more terror cells everyday. So no... our gains mean nothing and sticking around isn't magically going to make the whole thing do a 360.

Btw, your absurd notion that the disgust many of us have towards the war which is due in part to the fact that it was started, maintained and lost all under false information and pretenses is a childish argument makes me wonder what the hell went wrong with this country. I dare to say that this type of view is more dangerous to America and democracy than anything in Iraq.

 

[techs]

Let me see. The Iraqis are primarily Shiites who hate the Sunnis. Al-Qaeda is a Sunni group.
So basically if we leave Iraq, why wouldn't the Shiites just start blasting away at Al-Qaeda?
Oh yeah, Al-Qaeda would leave Iraq if the U.S. left.
After all they are supposed to follow us home.

 

[Lemon law]

The dangerous myth inherent to all the non-Prof John posts on the this subject is that we will keep subscribing to the idea that a US led military solution is even possible for Iraq. And keep letting GWB continue wasting lives, resources, and precious time when our 4+ year experience is that GWB&co. bungles everything it touches in Iraq. As non-Prof John keeps the the endless supply of kool aid coming, this very subject is beginning to sound like the BIG LIE---That if repeated often enough will somehow be regarded as conventional wisdom and truth.

But two other broad options exist for Iraq that should be considered.---and are not being pursued by GWB&co. (1) Get the heck out which is going to be a result if congress cuts funding. And will also be the disgust default if we persist with the GWB&co. military plan.
(2) To bring in the entire international community with diplomatic efforts which is the Baker Hamilton blueprint. Which could then bring in the enough troops to stabilize Iran.

GWB&co. has too much ego to co-operate with either option because it compromises their ability to be in total control of the insane asylum. But a system of congressional carrots and sticks could force both those options--or the international community could independently get behind option #2. And we can all consider the more likely truth that can lead to progress.

And that truth is that no progress for Iraq will be possible while GWB&co. remain in charge.
With that being the one fact that is unquestionably borne out by experience.

But here is the bait being dangled by non-Prof John in the original post of this thread--Does this make you more patient in finding a resolution to Iraq? I.E. as long as we are making progress why not stay a little longer.

And I ask is alluring progress nothing but an illusion? Many measures suggest that the Sunni's are simply deciding their insurgency is better done by themselves. Where is the progress?---when US troop deaths are up 50% and civilian deaths are also rising.

Where is the progress?

 

[db]

I believe that the "anti-AQ" news is the Iraq gov't responding to Congress' having sent the message that Iraq needs to get busy and take care of business or we are out of there. Problem is, since Spring 2006 it has been a civil war over there and AQ is only about 10% of who is fighting. They are almost insignificant except for PR purposes.

The war was over when Bush was on the aircraft carrier in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner. We defeated Sadam's regime. Ever since then, it has been a U.S. Occupation.

I also believe that the Administration does not want to leave b/c their work is not yet done in the Middle East. Look at a map: Afghanistan, Iraq....and what country lays between those two? Iran. What a coincidence.

It is sad indeed to contemplate that there might have been a bigger plan all along--we just don't want to believe that our own leaders would do such a thing....

 

[Lemon law]

If we are to believe the db bigger plan hypothesis, then one must also believe in a set of sequential steps that totally fall apart when step one is bungled. But its been long thought that Dick Cheney really really has his heart set on doing Iran. I can only hope that the initial failures in implementation bring a health does of reality therapy to that kind of megalomania. I am distressed to see various news reports that Cheney has not given up trying. And its hard for me to trust KindaSleezy Rice to be one of the voices of sanity.


But that seems to be the sad state of affairs as the GWB administration slowly winds to a close. And I would much prefer to have congress give GWB a very firm no way on expanding the Iraq war to include Iran.