Top ten questions for General Petraeus!
- added April 8, 2008
- 42 responses
-
-
-
-
- crob80227
- added this
-
-
- related topics
-
- News and Politics (31508)
- Not News (25091)
- Random (19622)
- Politics (19606)
- Art and Style (17364)
- Culture (12658)
- WTF (9990)
- Barack Obama (2479)
- War (2179)
- Election 2008 (2168)
- Iraq (1754)
- Hillary Clinton (1395)
- Elections (700)
- surge (19)
- General Petraeus (11)
When Gen. Petreaus and Amb. Crocker appear before both houses of Congress tomorrow and Thursday, Democrats should ideally position themselves through these hearings to achieve the following overarching goals:
-- Debunk the fiction that the military surge has achieved sustainable military or political objectives.
-- Undermine Sen. McCain's argument that staying the course is a patriotic duty.
-- Demonstrate to the American people that the recent Iraqi government defeat at the hands of the Mahdi Army was indeed the "defining moment" that Bush claimed it was.
-- Offer a credible Democratic approach to stay the course that logically will achieve more in the long run for American security in the Middle East than what more of the same can possibly achieve.
With this in mind, and if I were staffing the hearings, here is the list of questions I would be proposing to our Democratic inquisitors:
1. Prime Minister Maliki launched an offensive to defeat the Mahdi Army in Basra. He was forced, despite U.S. logistical and air support, to sue for a ceasefire. President Bush declared during the fighting that this was a "defining moment" for Iraq. Why shouldn't the American people view this "defining moment" as exactly what it was: a defeat for us, the Iraqi government and a victory for radical Shiite militias?
2. If the U.S. military cannot adequately defend the Green Zone from missile attack from Shiite militias, why should the American people believe that the surge has achieved tangible, and not momentary lulls in violence?
3. General Petraeus, you are proposing that the current level of military forces remain static longer than planned. Isn't this proof that the amount of troops in Iraq will never be enough to adequately reduce the level of violence against U.S. and Iraqi forces?
4. Define "victory" within the context of the current Iraqi political and military environment? Why should this not be a recipe for disaster given the inability of the Iraqi military to meet its training goals and objectives?
5. America has now suffered the loss of over 4,000 soldiers and tens of thousands wounded. How willing, General Petreaus, are you prepared to stretch the military's capability to sustain troop levels at even the 100,000 level beyond the summer and what are your specific goals and objectives?
-- Debunk the fiction that the military surge has achieved sustainable military or political objectives.
-- Undermine Sen. McCain's argument that staying the course is a patriotic duty.
-- Demonstrate to the American people that the recent Iraqi government defeat at the hands of the Mahdi Army was indeed the "defining moment" that Bush claimed it was.
-- Offer a credible Democratic approach to stay the course that logically will achieve more in the long run for American security in the Middle East than what more of the same can possibly achieve.
With this in mind, and if I were staffing the hearings, here is the list of questions I would be proposing to our Democratic inquisitors:
1. Prime Minister Maliki launched an offensive to defeat the Mahdi Army in Basra. He was forced, despite U.S. logistical and air support, to sue for a ceasefire. President Bush declared during the fighting that this was a "defining moment" for Iraq. Why shouldn't the American people view this "defining moment" as exactly what it was: a defeat for us, the Iraqi government and a victory for radical Shiite militias?
2. If the U.S. military cannot adequately defend the Green Zone from missile attack from Shiite militias, why should the American people believe that the surge has achieved tangible, and not momentary lulls in violence?
3. General Petraeus, you are proposing that the current level of military forces remain static longer than planned. Isn't this proof that the amount of troops in Iraq will never be enough to adequately reduce the level of violence against U.S. and Iraqi forces?
4. Define "victory" within the context of the current Iraqi political and military environment? Why should this not be a recipe for disaster given the inability of the Iraqi military to meet its training goals and objectives?
5. America has now suffered the loss of over 4,000 soldiers and tens of thousands wounded. How willing, General Petreaus, are you prepared to stretch the military's capability to sustain troop levels at even the 100,000 level beyond the summer and what are your specific goals and objectives?
-
6. If the next American president planned a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops within 16 months of assuming office and within the context of such a withdrawal, was able to negotiate a responsible regional initiative to pacify Iraq, why wouldn't this approach achieve "victory" by creating an environment on which the future was not dependent on either U.S. troops or intra-Shiite reconciliation?
7. Incubating Iraqi political reconciliation was supposed to be one of the byproducts of the surge. Yet, the Iraqi government is as dysfunctional and disunited as ever -- and our forces are now caught not just between Sunni and Shiite, but between one radical Shiite faction and another. If we are not fighting principally Al Qaeda, but one Shiite faction against another, isn't this just "mission creep" with no end in sight?
8. How much will this war cost the American taxpayer in 2008? Has the Iraqi government contributed any oil revenue to offset the cost of this war to the American taxpayer? Please explain where Iraq's oil revenue is going?
8. The Iraqi government continues to embrace anti U.S. policies and U.S. adversaries. Isn't it an insult to those killed and injured in Iraq that Prime Minister Maliki rolls out a red carpet to Iranian President Ahmadenijad whose Revolutionary Guards, by your own account, is sending arms and funds into Iraq to kill and injure U.S. troops?
9. Admiral Fallon, the former head of Central Command (CENTCOM) recently resigned (actually was forced to resign). Please explain what was Admiral Fallon's assessment of your recommendations with respect to troop levels and the overall goals and objectives that the strategy was designed to achieve in Iraq?
10. If Al Qaeda's threat has been substantially reduced, why shouldn't we more expeditiously draw down our forces in Iraq to facilitate a transfer of American forces to Afghanistan where the real struggle against Al Qaeda must be waged?
I have a question for every one of our killed and injured, as well as for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have lost their lives due, in part, to the malfeasance of the Bush/Cheney policy in Iraq... but no question and no answer can adequately do justice for all of the losses.
A McCain-inspired "staying the course" is nothing more than a direct route to defeat and disaster for the United States. If John McCain was able to argue to the media's content that he orchestrated a new approach to Iraq that is more of the same, than surely Democrats have it within their power to convince the American people that the better approach is not more of the same given events in Iraq in recent weeks. -
In my mind the most important question is # 7 -- If we are not fighting principally Al Qaeda, but one Shiite faction against another, isn't this just "mission creep" with no end in sight?
There are no US "enemies" in Iraq.
It's a civil war amongst Iraqi citizens.
So let's stop calling it a "war" that the US has to "win" to keep our country safe. -
Very good stuff, crob. Can I vote for you? I have a few bucks. Stuck in a war with no victory to be gained. Everyone loses.
Where's "WOPR" when we need it? -
-
Why won't they just stop? When are we going to be civilized enough to not kill people?
-
-
-
-
- Marilynn_Murray
- 4 months ago
-
-
What is the difference between leaving now or leaving later? Wouldn't we have the same result either way?
-
I copied the link/article to Rep. Wexler. Maybe he'll ask...[and maybe we'll get an answer]
-
LBJ was in an identical spot Bush is in now.
In public Pres. Johnson insisted we were "winning" and had to "win" to defeat the commies -- but in private letters and meetings he routinely admited that he knew Vietnam was going to be unwinnable.
The following link doesn't quote the recently released letters wherein he acknowledges he's misleading the public about our ability to win against the insurgents in Vietnam, but this link does offer some startling similarities between LBJ and Bush:
-----
"I'm trying to win it just as fast as I can in every way that I know how," he told Eisenhower, who offered his support. Johnson added, "I need all the help I can get."
Talking with someone else, Johnson railed against "commies" that he said ran the New York Times and against what he characterized as the newspaper's criticism of the war.
"The Times is run by a bunch of commies, and they want to get out of Vietnam and yield it to them, and I don't think I can quite do that," Johnson said.
-----
McNamara said there were plenty of bombs - 265,000 tons of bombs either in Southeast Asia or on the way there.
"Frankly, we're going to just snow the place under with bombs," McNamara said. "And I'm doing it purposely to make them cry, 'Stop.'"
-----
Vengence as a military directive?
Someone cue the National Anthem. -
1. Prime Minister Maliki launched an offensive to defeat the Mahdi Army in Basra. He was forced, despite U.S. logistical and air support, to sue for a ceasefire. President Bush declared during the fighting that this was a "defining moment" for Iraq. Why shouldn't the American people view this "defining moment" as exactly what it was: a defeat for us, the Iraqi government and a victory for radical Shiite militias?
I don't think that your premise or question captures the entirety of the circumstances. Trying to cast this as a defeat before all the chips hit the floor is a bit premature, is it not?
2. If the U.S. military cannot adequately defend the Green Zone from missile attack from Shiite militias, why should the American people believe that the surge has achieved tangible, and not momentary lulls in violence?
Because the empirical evidence and the situation on the ground tells us that it has, missile attacks on the Green Zone notwithstanding. To hold these attacks as evidence of failure is akin to saying that seat belts are a failure because people still die in automobile accidents.
3. General Petraeus, you are proposing that the current level of military forces remain static longer than planned. Isn't this proof that the amount of troops in Iraq will never be enough to adequately reduce the level of violence against U.S. and Iraqi forces?
How so? Couldn't it also be taken as proof that the goal is in sight and that he doesn't want to do anything to risk the gains being made?
4. Define "victory" within the context of the current Iraqi political and military environment? Why should this not be a recipe for disaster given the inability of the Iraqi military to meet its training goals and objectives?
I think the conditions have been set repeatedly and shouldn't have to be repeated by General Petraeus. What evidence do you have that the Iraqi Military is not meeting its training goals and objectives?
5. America has now suffered the loss of over 4,000 soldiers and tens of thousands wounded. How willing, General Petreaus, are you prepared to stretch the military's capability to sustain troop levels at even the 100,000 level beyond the summer and what are your specific goals and objectives?
I would assume that Petraeus is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve the objectives that have been laid before him by the C in C. I'm assuming that some of the reconciliation measures that are being implemented will have tremendous impact. If they do not, then Petraeus' options will start to become very limited. -
6. If the next American president planned a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops within 16 months of assuming office and within the context of such a withdrawal, was able to negotiate a responsible regional initiative to pacify Iraq, why wouldn't this approach achieve "victory" by creating an environment on which the future was not dependent on either U.S. troops or intra-Shiite reconciliation?
I suppose it could, but I also suppose that Petraeus would want that withdrawal to be conditions based.
7. Incubating Iraqi political reconciliation was supposed to be one of the byproducts of the surge. Yet, the Iraqi government is as dysfunctional and disunited as ever -- and our forces are now caught not just between Sunni and Shiite, but between one radical Shiite faction and another. If we are not fighting principally Al Qaeda, but one Shiite faction against another, isn't this just "mission creep" with no end in sight?
There is a large body of evidence that political reconciliation is underway and that both provincial elections and national elections will do much to solidify it. A number of reconciliation measures have been passed in the past few months and are in the process of being implemented. Again . . . you've got your cart where your horse should be. Our job is to help the Iraqis stabilize their security situation, irrespective of the nature of the threats to it. Seems like a pretty clear mission to me.
8. The Iraqi government continues to embrace anti U.S. policies and U.S. adversaries. Isn't it an insult to those killed and injured in Iraq that Prime Minister Maliki rolls out a red carpet to Iranian President Ahmadenijad whose Revolutionary Guards, by your own account, is sending arms and funds into Iraq to kill and injure U.S. troops?
Maybe. I'm sure that Maliki has been called to account. I'm sure that you also understand that Iraq and Iran must engage in some kind of diplomatic dialog as long as those options are open. How would you rather see these disputes settled?
9. Admiral Fallon, the former head of Central Command (CENTCOM) recently resigned (actually was forced to resign). Please explain what was Admiral Fallon's assessment of your recommendations with respect to troop levels and the overall goals and objectives that the strategy was designed to achieve in Iraq?
A fair question to be sure, but one I'm sure Petraeus has an answer for. These sort of disagreements are nothing new and are actually healthy for our country.
10. If Al Qaeda's threat has been substantially reduced, why shouldn't we more expeditiously draw down our forces in Iraq to facilitate a transfer of American forces to Afghanistan where the real struggle against Al Qaeda must be waged?
Another fair question. Certainly you understand that all of this progress can be easily reversed if the Iraqi Security Forces are not prepared to span the breach our leaving would create. The better question would be exactly what capabilities that the ISF do not currently possess do you believe will be required to repel the forces (not just AQ) that are seeking instability and how and when do you believe the ISF will have them? -
jawnybnsc: the most important question in your post (only the first 5 have been posted as of this writing) has to do with the definition of "victory" in Iraq.
What the hell are the specific military objectives of the US military?
You dismiss this by saying, "Yeah. I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere before. Surely Gen. Petraeus can't be bothered to articulate it before Congress."
Actually defining what our specific military objectives are AT THIS POINT is at the heart of the debate. What our military was tasked to do on Day One of the invasion is not what they are doing now nor what Congress authorized those troops to do.
Here's the problem:
On 9/11 several of our planes were hijacked and two were crashed into the WTC.
NONE of the hijackers were from Iraq.
We went into Iraq under the rationale that Saddam had WMD's in violation of the UN.
We disposed Saddam. Tried him, convicted him and executed him.
We found no WMD's.
Elections have taken place. A new coalition government has been formed.
Every single step up to that point was a specific military objective. Everything AFTER that is not a military objective; but, rather it has become "mission creep."
The civil war raging between the CIVILIAN religious militas and CIVILIAN ethnic groups is unfortunate and the United Nations should send peacekeepers there (if the member nations deem it necessary) -- but the local civil war raging between Iraqi civilian gangs is not in any way, shape or form a US military issue. -
Question: If the 2002 Authorization To Use Military Force In Iraq was limited to a) deposing Saddam b) eliminating Al Qaeda c) eliminating any WMD's --- and as of this date ALL of those military objectives have been accomplished, what the hell are we still doing there?
We know what our military objectives were in 2002 and we have accomplished all of them (see also: "Mission Accomplished" banner)
----
Excerpt: Two arguments used to justify the invasion of Iraq — the capability to produce and/or the possession of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda — have been found to be incorrect according to all official reports. The post-invasion Duelfer Report stated that Hussein had still not given up on trying to produce WMD in 2003. His strategy was to first bring UN sanctions to an end by demonstrating that he was cooperating with weapons inspectors and, once sanctions were lifted, to then revive Iraq's WMD program, including nuclear weapons. The report also stated that Hussein did not want to appear weak. To deter his enemies, he intentionally deceived the world into thinking he still had WMD. There was a "balancing act" between cooperating with the UN and keeping a "strategic deterrent".
A 2007 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, declassified and released at the request of Senator Carl M. Levin (D-Mich), asserted that the claims of an operational working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, as put forth by a key Pentagon office in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, were based on dubious or unconfirmed reports. President Bush has, since the invasion of Iraq, explicitly stated that that country was not involved in 9-11, which has also been concluded by subsequent reports, and any alleged contacts with al-Qaeda were in areas outside of Saddam Hussein's control. Also, the day before she voted on the resolution, Senator Clinton said during a speech on the Senate floor that there was no dispute that Hussein was not involved in the September 11th attacks. Neverless, BBC News, The Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Institute for Public Accuracy, and Media Matters for America contend that members of the administration repeatedly over the years made suggestive statements with the implied message there was a link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks. Two recent independent studies show that Bush and his administration used 935 statements to justify the war that later turned out to be false.
----
Yes, whenever there is civil unrest in any country it's unfortunate. All our strategic military objectives in Iraq have been accomplished and a new government has been elected and has been in place for quite some time. Iraq is experiencing a civil war.
Question: if the US had NEVER invaded Iraq and they experienced a civil war indetical to the one raging now -- would you be willing to commit $2 trillion dollars, 200,000 soliders and be comfortable with 4,000 dead (and counting)?
Of course not.
The US iteself is not engaged in a "war" in Iraq at this moment. Our troops are stuck in the crossfire of a civil war between Iraqi civilian religious militas while engaging in civil service repair projects such as repairing broken sewar mains!
I might be misinterpreting the ATUMF -- but I'm pretty sure it didn't say "Find WMD's, dispose of Saddam, remain for 50 years rebuilding Iraqi infrastructre and repairing toilets for Iraqi citizens." -
Wow, there are so many lengthy, detailed responses to this. I'm impressed by how knowledgeable people are, though my one question for Petraeus: 'Is there a way we can make your job irrelevant? ' Isn't it time for peace?
-
Tibet Engages In Violent Clashes With China
-----
Seems like the growing INTERNAL conflict between Tibet and China is in all the news lately.
How many troops will we be sending to mediate that dispute?
None?
Well, what about the genocide in Darfur? How many troops will we be sending to resolve that internal civil war raging between two ethnic/religious groups? 200,000 troops? 250,000?
None?
Let's review what's happening in Darfur:
A rebellion started in 2003 against the Arab-dominated Sudanese government, with two local rebel groups - the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA) - accusing the government of oppressing non-Arabs in favor of Arabs. The government was also accused of neglecting the Darfur region of Sudan. In response, the government mounted a campaign of aerial bombardment supporting ground attacks by an Arab militia, the Janjaweed. The government-supported Janjaweed were accused of committing major human rights violations, including mass killing, looting, and systematic rape of the non-Arab population of Darfur. They have frequently burned down whole villages, driving the surviving inhabitants to flee to refugee camps, mainly in Darfur and Chad; many of the camps in Darfur are surrounded by Janjaweed forces. By the summer of 2004, 50,000 to 80,000 people had been killed and at least a million had been driven from their homes, causing a major humanitarian crisis in the region.
---
Okay, now why doesn't Bush view the local Arab civil war raging in Darfur with the same "concern" he views the local Arab civil war raging in Iraq?
Why isn't Bush claiming it is vital to our national security interests that the terrorist insurgents in Darfur don't win thus allowing the region to become a "haven" for terrorists?
What's happening in Iraq (in my view) seem to be happening in many, many places around the world right now -- and yet Bush seems to have absolutely no concern for those regions and has voiced absolutely no plans to send ANY troops to those regions.
This leads me to conclude that Bush's rationale for remaining in Iraq to force our soliders to mediate THAT civil war is complete and total bullshit. -
Quote: You dismiss this by saying, "Yeah. I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere before. Surely Gen. Petraeus can't be bothered to articulate it before Congress."
Well . . . that's not exactly what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that I don't see the value in my recapitulating all of that here. I've been watching the testimony all day and whether you agree or not, neither General Petraeus or Ambassador Crocker seem confused about the mission or the end state. In fact, Senator Obama just asked some very pointed questions along those lines and both the General and the Ambassador answered him clearly and comprehensively. I would suggest that you go read their testimony as my attempt to recount it here would really not be very useful.
Quote: Actually defining what our actual military interest AT THIS POINT is specifically the heart of the debate. What our military was tasked to do on Day One of the invasion is not what they are doing now nor what Congress authorized those troops to do.
While this is true, I don't really see how it is meaningful in the context of warfare. The mission always changes and the reconstruction and stability of conquered/defeated nations has always been a responsibility that the United States has taken on. We are almost unique in that and it should be a source of pride rather than reason for angst and frustration. It would have been easy to bug out long ago and leave the Iraqis in chaos. I don't think any of us would be very proud of such a result and I don't think any of us would be feeling very safe right now if Iraq were to be overrun with terrorist organizations of varying stripe.
Quote: The civil war raging between the CIVILIAN religious militas and CIVILIAN ethnic groups is unfortunate and the United Nations should send peacekeepers there (if the member nations deem it necessary) -- but the local civil war raging between Iraqi civilian gangs is not in any way, shape or form a US military issue.
I think that's debatable. Instability in Iraq becomes a National Security issue if it leads to a spreading of violence in the region and ultimately to a ripening of conditions for support of terror organizations. If the entire ME becomes destabilized, i.e. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey are drawn into the conflict, do you think that would be a US military issue? -
Why isn't Bush claiming it is vital to our national security interests that the terrorist insurgents in Darfur don't win thus allowing the region to become a "haven" for terrorists?
What's happening in Iraq (in my view) seem to be happening in many, many places around the world right now -- and yet Bush seems to have absolutely no concern for those regions and has voiced absolutely no plans to send ANY troops to those regions.
This leads me to conclude that Bush's rationale for remaining in Iraq to force our soliders to mediate THAT civil war is complete and total bullshit.
Those are good points, but your conclusion is faulty. I think the rationale for doing something in Darfur exists and that we would be justified in taking action. As you say, there are many other hot spots that could end up being threats. Does that mean that you are now with the neocons in supporting preemptive war? Why does it have to be all or none? Why can't we prioritize these things and take action only where action is justified? Do you not understand that the conditions in Iraq, especially the years of sanctions, containment and UNSC Resolutions made it the ripest target after Afghanistan? -
Broken down to its basic elements we are supposedly in Iraq to secure WMD, rescue the locals from evil tyranny and beat back an enemy that wasn't there until we invaded. Seeing how there was no WMD, we are causing the deaths of more Iraqis then Saddam could even imagine and the true enemy is in Afghanistan - why are we still in Iraq?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ -
I think the sad widely unknown truth of the Iraq war is that it was never meant to be won. Only sustained. A few months ago when a video of Dick Cheney from 1994 surfaced on YouTube he was describing everything that would go wrong if we invaded Baghdad and all the reasons why America should not invade.
Yet eight years later he seemingly forgot all that and pushed for the invasion. The country is in shambles and there are far from enough troops on the ground to make much of a difference in their situation. Really the only thing that has been accomplished is the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure allowing companies such as Halaburtion and Bechtel to use their government no bid contracts and start 'rebuilding' while cutting corners and using inferior materials. Buildings keep blowing up and they keep getting paid to rebuild them.
The people running this war don't want it to end because their making a killing. (pardon my pun) -
I think the resigantion of Admiral Fallon who strongly disagreed with the presidents stated postions on Iraq and has advocated for a shift in priorities to Afganistan is a huge issue and has been brushed over in light of these hearings. This is going to be a week of media kowtowing to Bush and McCain. I expect no revelations and a well politicized public relations campaign trying to sound the drumbeat for war with Iran. I am frankly sickened.
-
i'd ask : " so , are you a patriot ? would you say that a true patriot wouldn't need to be paid to fight for his country ? would you be willing to stay on in your present capacity without pay or any compensation , effective immediately ? " .
-
"War is a force that give people meaning" so says Chris Hedges -
the sad sad truth is the fact that there will be no truth. under oath or not. these men earned their positions by lying. why would they ever stop now. if they were to reveal anything they surely would be shot. but that would be an honorable death at least. think about anyone in a position of power that spoke out against this government and you can see what would happen to them. they dont mind the little guys getting uppity. we can say what we want but if too many people begin to listen...POW.
-
-
-
-
- dirkglitchmann
- 4 months ago
-
-
There is definitely a civil war going on and has been for a long time. Saddam just killed anyone that got out of line and now with him out of the way theres a void to be filled. We're in Iraq for the private contractors. They do the job that our military isn't allowed to do, like kill innocents/insurgents, steal or overcharge taxpayers, and achieve objectives not constrained by Rules of Engagement and bureaucracy. Our achievements include overthrowing a government, securing oil wells, holding democratic elections during a civil war, better IED detection, and killing over 600,000 Iraqi peoples. Our death toll is somethin over 4000 not a bad ratio if you ask me. We've been warned this is our Vietnam only more subtle and better control of field journalism. We are occupiers of many places this is just another on the list all we can do is vote locally and hope the Senate and House can balance the weight given away.
-
I'm watching in shock and awe as the two main players answer without really saying anything specific. One thing that keeps getting side-stepped is, no one wants to be the first to suggest failure on the US's part by laying a timeline for troop withdrawl. The other thing that keeps coming up is variations on the theme, "We shouldn't have gone in and, now, we can't leave."
Crap. Here comes another migraine. -
The Pro-War Movement always darkly suggests that "We can't allow Iraq to fail! It will be overrun with terrorists and they will fly over here with suitcase bombs and kill us all instantly!"
Is that a rational, realistic concern?
I don't believe so and here's my thinking:
Are civil wars -- identical to the one raging in Iraq -- occuring in any other countries right now?
Yes.
Are there, in fact, MANY civil wars raging through out Africa, the former lands of the former Soviet Union and elsewhere in the Middle East? (I recall some sort of conflict occuring between the Arabs and Israeli)
Yes.
Have we committed 200,000 troops and 2 trillion dollars to any of those civil wars?
No.
Do some of the nations of the former Soviet Union have extremists terrorists groups? Yes. Do they have nuclear weapons located in these areas? Yes. How many hundreds of thousands of troops has Bush committed there? None.
Is North Korea a rouge nation that has declared war on the US and is in possession of nuclear weapons? Yes. How many troops has Bush sent to invade North Korea? None.
Where do most security experts believe Osama bin laden to be operating out of? Pakistan. How many US troops are currently in Pakistan searching for the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks? Zero (according to a quick Google search) Gen. Musharraf refuses to allow them in.
How much MONEY have we simply handed over to Pakistan dictator, er, I mean President for Life General Musharraf? 10 Billion (and counting!)
----
It seems to me the proponents of the 100 Year Occupation of Iraq have an extreme case of tunnel vision. North Korea is one of the most out of control dangerous nations on earth -- no troops sent. The Pro-Occupation camp voices no complaints, agrees no troops should be sent and feel perfectly safe with that decision.
Former Soviet Union -- The Chechen rebels' decade-long struggle against Russia, originally a separatist movement, has melded increasingly with Islamic extremism in the past decade and spread far beyond Chechnya's borders to encompass the whole turbulent Russian Caucasus region. The states Chechen rebels conduct terror operations conatain nuclear weapons and nuclear materials for a dirty bomb. How many troops has Bush committed to THAT civil war? None. The Pro_occupation camp agrees that no troops should be sent and feel perfectly safe.
I need the 100 Year Iraq Occupation supporters to walk me through the logic here: We have to stay in Iraq because if we don't one of the TWO Islamic extremist militas currently fighting each other will take over the country and be in control of a land with no WMD's or nuclear weapons ---- but somehow it is perfectly okay (and safe!) to utterly ignore the civil war raging in the balkanized former Soviet Union between Chechen/Islamic extremists and Russia (in areas with nuclear weapons and nuclear materials) because.......why?
The logic of why Iraq's civil war is more "dangerous" to the US than the former Soviet Union's many civil wars is lost on me. -
crob80227 . . . have you read any of Ayman al-Zawahiri's statements on Iraq? What you believe will happen is really kind of irrelevant when juxtaposed with Al Qaeda's stated aims in Iraq and the wider Middle East.
Quote: but somehow it is perfectly okay (and safe!) to utterly ignore the civil war raging in the balkanized former Soviet Union between Chechen/Islamic extremists and Russia (in areas with nuclear weapons and nuclear materials) because.......why?
Actually this is a good point . . . and no it's not OK. That said, how does this change the exigencies of Iraq? -
I suppose the central points would be:
a) there are MANY dangers in the world today
b) we can and continue to NOT involve our military in those situations (we don't invade North Korea, we don't committ troops to any of the other 200 civil wars raging across the world, etc)
c) we're safe
The Pro-Occupation arguement sounds almost identical to the line of reasoning the Pro-Vietnam camp was espousing decades ago.
"We can't let the commies take over Vietnam or else it will turn into a stepping stone from which they will take over that entire world!"
We heard multiple variations on that theme for years and years -- all predicting that we'd ultimately be forced into World War III with the Soviet Union if we allowed Vietnam to fall into their hands.
And did any of those dire World War III perdiciton come to pass? Did the Soviet Union turn Vietnam into a superpowerful stronghold through which it proceeded to conquer the world?
And now we're hearing those exact same dire predictions of doom and calamity in regards to the civil war raging in Iraq.
Here's another angle to think of: even if we did "win" and one of the militant Islamic strongmen we've randomly decided to back this week does defeat all the others -- how does that gaurantee that no terror cells won't spring up in the more remote recesses of Iraq? The 9/11 hijackers used $10 in box cutters! Can we gaurantee that there would be NO terror cells operating out of Iraq even if we "won"?
What exactly does a "haven" for terrorists look like? Pro-Occupation supporters never really define that. Does it look like North Korea? Does it look like Pakistan (where Osama is currently living)? North Korea has never attacked us militarily nor have they sent terrorists to blow us up nor is their any evidence that they have ever supplied any Islamic terrorists with weapons. And Pakistan is actually our ally!
So when the boogey man of "terrorist haven" is trotted out -- what exactly does that mean and how could anything that evolved in dirt poor 3rd world no-infrastructure-left Iraq be WORSE than North Korea, Syria, Pakistan or, hell, even Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
North Korea has more nukes and Saudi Arabia mass produces more terrorists than any other place on earth -- yet we're supposed to believe that Iraq(!?!) is more of a threat to us in military terms than either Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea or any of the areas holding nuclear weapons wherein the Islamo-Chechen rebels are fighting?
It didn't really upset the balance of power in the world win the Soviet Union "won" the dirt poor nation of Vietnam from us. Nor do I (or the military experts) really believe it will upset the balance of power if Iran is able to influence Iraq politically after our departure. If Iran really wants to go in and take over the trillion dollar responsibility of rebuilding all their electrical grids and sewer mains -- let'em! Good luck and Godspeed. -
I suppose you can make the comparison to the "Domino Theory" of the 1960s. At least rhetorically, the similarities are there, but beyond that I think the comparison is inapt for a number of reasons, chiefly the fact that the North Vietnamese never declared any intent to spread communism outside their borders. Despite the absence of such a declaration, I'm sure you're aware of the fact that the domino theory was in some ways proven by what transpired in Cambodia and Laos. Our abandonment of the South led directly to the human tragedy that unfolded off of Vietnam's shores and within the borders of Vietnam's neighbors.
Quote: So when the boogey man of "terrorist haven" is trotted out -- what exactly does that mean and how could anything that evolved in dirt poor 3rd world no-infrastructure-left Iraq be WORSE than North Korea, Syria, Pakistan or, hell, even Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
That's a silly question given what we know about Afghanistan.
