Will Americans outlast the insurgency?

[Palestinian Jew]

I think it may be time to withdraw our troops. Not because what we are doing in Iraq is wrong, but because it seems inevitable with a majority of americans against the war and a projected time of 10 years to defeat the insurgency inside Iraq. I do not see the resolve to stay.

According to recent polls, http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm , Americans are increasingly saying that the war has not been worth it and 52% say a timetable should be implemented.

General Casey said that these insurgencies generally go on for 10 years. After only two years of fighting, the majority of Americans are already saying it was not worth it.

How much longer will it be before support for the war erodes until a president has to withdraw troops? Rumsfeld and other Bush officials have stated that success in Iraq means a viable democracy. Historically, it is improbable that a democracy can get a real foothold in Iraq in the next 10 years in such an unstable environment.

I do not think my point can be easily dismissed. No matter what side you're on, its undeniable that the willpower to stay in Iraq is fading, but what do you think? Is there any foreseeable way that American support might increase, or any future progress in Iraq to support staying?

 

[5stringJeff]

I think we are getting to the point where US troop levels will begin to decrease, since the Iraqis have now approved their Constitution. However, Bush won't announce any timetables because that gives the terrorist insurgency the initiative in their fight. I think that troop levels will decrease significantly over the next two or three years as the situtation in Iraq becomes better, and the Iraqis can defend their own land.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Then the question remains at what point will the Iraqis be ready? There may not be support for troops staying for a year, much less two, three or four more. The way I see this happening is that the next president, within the first 6 months of their presidency, will have to announce some sort of timetable, with troops being withdrawn either gradually or quickly(depending on public opinion).

Assuming the Bush Admin doesn't withdraw troops, public opinion will only give the troops 3 more years in Iraq. That would mean that the Iraqis would have 5 years of fighting the insurgency alone, not only that, but our withdrawl would be viewed as a defeat, giving more recruits to the insurgents, thereby lengthening the insurgency. Plus, other Middle Eastern countries(i.e. Iran, Syria) would probably arm and help recruit for the insurgency.

The only reason one could have in saying that troops should be maintained in Iraq for three more years is the hope of training and re-educating the Iraqi army to go after the terrorists.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

We must stay the course. Of course we'll be able to leave someday, but announcing when just gives the terrorists something tangible to hang their dreams upon. This is a battle of wills. The American People will support what is right.

 

[ThomasPaine]

Then the question remains at what point will the Iraqis be ready? There may not be support for troops staying for a year, much less two, three or four more. The way I see this happening is that the next president, within the first 6 months of their presidency, will have to announce some sort of timetable, with troops being withdrawn either gradually or quickly(depending on public opinion).

Assuming the Bush Admin doesn't withdraw troops, public opinion will only give the troops 3 more years in Iraq. That would mean that the Iraqis would have 5 years of fighting the insurgency alone, not only that, but our withdrawl would be viewed as a defeat, giving more recruits to the insurgents, thereby lengthening the insurgency. Plus, other Middle Eastern countries(i.e. Iran, Syria) would probably arm and help recruit for the insurgency.

The only reason one could have in saying that troops should be maintained in Iraq for three more years is the hope of training and re-educating the Iraqi army to go after the terrorists.

They have to:

A: Want to die and don't mind suicide.

B: Hate the idea of a representative government in Iraq. Guess ya gotta be a Shiite that fears Sunni rule.

C: Be an Iranian, Syrian, Saudi, Jordanian, take your pick, that sees no future in your own country, and loves the idea of possible killing Americans and dying/ commiting suicide (and getting all those virgins )...

 

[Palestinian Jew]

We must stay the course. Of course we'll be able to leave someday, but announcing when just gives the terrorists something tangible to hang their dreams upon. This is a battle of wills. The American People will support what is right.

What evidence do you have that we'll "stay the course"? According to all of the polls I provided, Americans have decided that staying the course is the wrong thing to do.

Please provide facts.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

They have to:

A: Want to die and don't mind suicide.

B: Hate the idea of a representative government in Iraq. Guess ya gotta be a Shiite that fears Sunni rule.

C: Be an Iranian, Syrian, Saudi, Jordanian, take your pick, that sees no future in your own country, and loves the idea of possible killing Americans and dying/ commiting suicide (and getting all those virgins )...

First, even if the insurgency is limited, say 200,000, we or the iraqis would have to pull together a sizeable force, maybe 250,000 to defeat them.

The insurgency may be limited if you define it as being only those that wish to defeat America and democracy. Foreign fighters are replenishable. Maybe they'd like to see a government in Baghdad that is favorable to Iran/Syria/Jordan. Maybe Iran would like to set themselves up with a dictatorship or pupppet government, the Shi'a hold a majority afterall.

Then of course, apart from the insurgents, there are serious problems between the ethnicities that will probably lead to future violence.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What evidence do you have that we'll "stay the course"? According to all of the polls I provided, Americans have decided that staying the course is the wrong thing to do.

Please provide facts.

We will stay the course.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

What evidence do you have that we'll "stay the course"? According to all of the polls I provided, Americans have decided that staying the course is the wrong thing to do.

Please provide facts.

You made the statement, YOU provide the facts. PROVE Its true.

Seems the 52% level has been pretty steady for the last year. And besides, thats only questioning if it was worth it, not IF WE SHOULD STAY

 

[sitarro]

If the UN was anything worth while it would act to help replace American troops with a policing force of multinational defenders to help the Iraqis who have proven that they have the will to be a free nation. It is in the world's best interest to help these people defeat those that would prevent the Iraqis from achieving this goal but as usual these other nations can only bitch about the U.S. acting as the world police and do nothing to help. Why aren't the scummy nations that were so willing to help a ruthless dictator like Saddam(France, Germany, Russia)stepping up to the plate to help the PEOPLE of Iraq?

Where are the millions of protesters that were supposedly so concerned about the Iraqi people, where is Sean Penn? Why aren't they volunteering to help rebuild this fledgling nation? In other words, it's easy to carry rediculous signs to protest the ones that step up to do the dirty work, signs that supposedly say you care about the people but now that they have had enormously successful elections and they need the world's help, these millions of do gooders are nowhere to be found. . . kinda shows what their true aim was, partying and trying to get laid at another antiwar rally, hypocrites!

 

[OCA]

I think we are getting to the point where US troop levels will begin to decrease, since the Iraqis have now approved their Constitution. However, Bush won't announce any timetables because that gives the terrorist insurgency the initiative in their fight. I think that troop levels will decrease significantly over the next two or three years as the situtation in Iraq becomes better, and the Iraqis can defend their own land.

So Jeff this because the situation has gotten better up to this point? I mean anyone can see that the situation has slowly worsened over a two year period and if we continue to stay on this same path of inaction militarily i'm not exactly sure how you can predict the situation will get better.

 

[007]

Iraq needs to have an army, fully trained and outfitted ready to fight it's own battles, which includes insurgents. THEY are the ones that will need to "stay the course". Liberating Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam was our job. Stabilizing the country in it's post war power vacuum was our job. Keeping it stabilized until they can take care of business on their own is ALSO our job. I can't see that taking another TEN YEARS as guesstimated. I think that's rediculous. But I also think a "time table" is rediculous. It does very clearly give the insurgents an idea of what we are doing, and that is clearly something they DO NOT NEED.

What really needs to be done, is a world wide campaign needs to be implemented against terrorism and terrorists. Personally, I don't think a person the indescriminately kills innocent men, women and CHILDREN, should be labeled anything but a coward, and since these religous fanatics have major problems with being called certain things, I think all references to terrorists should be "pigs", or "dogs", or "coward pigs or dogs". See how they like that.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

If the UN was anything worth while it would act to help replace American troops with a policing force of multinational defenders to help the Iraqis who have proven that they have the will to be a free nation. It is in the world's best interest to help these people defeat those that would prevent the Iraqis from achieving this goal but as usual these other nations can only bitch about the U.S. acting as the world police and do nothing to help. Why aren't the scummy nations that were so willing to help a ruthless dictator like Saddam(France, Germany, Russia)stepping up to the plate to help the PEOPLE of Iraq?

Where are the millions of protesters that were supposedly so concerned about the Iraqi people, where is Sean Penn? Why aren't they volunteering to help rebuild this fledgling nation? In other words, it's easy to carry rediculous signs to protest the ones that step up to do the dirty work, signs that supposedly say you care about the people but now that they have had enormously successful elections and they need the world's help, these millions of do gooders are nowhere to be found. . . kinda shows what their true aim was, partying and trying to get laid at another antiwar rally, hypocrites!

Perfectly spoken. If ever there was a use for the UN, this is it. Problem with the UN, is, the UN should be looking out for the betterment of the world, but instead each member nation only looks out for its self interest. Not too united there.

As for the celebs and such opposed to the Iraq war, you are right.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So Jeff this because the situation has gotten better up to this point? I mean anyone can see that the situation has slowly worsened over a two year period and if we continue to stay on this same path of inaction militarily i'm not exactly sure how you can predict the situation will get better.

The situation has gotten worse? We should believe this cuz you say so? How about providing some facts for once.

I hear lots of soldiers interviewed, their views are much different than yours, Im more apt to believe them, dont know why, just am.

All the statistics I read about are that the infrastructure, etc, is improving more and more.

I recently posted an article that shows how stability is becoming the norm in the region, that people are DIVESTING their gold and diamonds (which are bought when an area is unstable) and INVESTING in real estate and businesses, a sign of growing stability.

Not a troll, but I will take a piece of ya !

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Iraq needs to have an army, fully trained and outfitted ready to fight it's own battles, which includes insurgents. THEY are the ones that will need to "stay the course". Liberating Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam was our job. Stabilizing the country in it's post war power vacuum was our job. Keeping it stabilized until they can take care of business on their own is ALSO our job. I can't see that taking another TEN YEARS as guesstimated. I think that's rediculous. But I also think a "time table" is rediculous. It does very clearly give the insurgents an idea of what we are doing, and that is clearly something they DO NOT NEED.

What really needs to be done, is a world wide campaign needs to be implemented against terrorism and terrorists. Personally, I don't think a person the indescriminately kills innocent men, women and CHILDREN, should be labeled anything but a coward, and since these religous fanatics have major problems with being called certain things, I think all references to terrorists should be "pigs", or "dogs", or "coward pigs or dogs". See how they like that.

How about: Gay, cum guzzling, pig eating dog women. :0 (kinda accurate )

 

[Annie]

The situation has gotten worse? We should believe this cuz you say so? How about providing some facts for once.

I hear lots of soldiers interviewed, their views are much different than yours, Im more apt to believe them, dont know why, just am.

All the statistics I read about are that the infrastructure, etc, is improving more and more.

I recently posted an article that shows how stability is becoming the norm in the region, that people are DIVESTING their gold and diamonds (which are bought when an area is unstable) and INVESTING in real estate and businesses, a sign of growing stability.

Not a troll, but I will take a piece of ya !

I agree. Everything I've seen and heard, other than MSM is with an improving situation over there. I've posted at least 10's if not 100's of things that point this out.

I heard a guy this morning, has been in and out of Iraq for the past 5 years, over 20 months total. He said the surest sign that things are on the right side, is the increase in building 'rental real estate' over 9 stories high. There would be no 'speculation' as there was none under Saddam, if the investors feel that life is going to be short and brutal.

 

[Annie]

Links at site, be sure to check out the last, you'll understand why so much is 'underreported.':

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18039_GI_Saved_Journalists_at_Palestine_Hotel&only

GI Saved Journalists at Palestine Hotel

Given the many accusations by people like Eason Jordan that the US military deliberately targets journalists in Iraq, you’d think mainstream media would be quicker to recognize stories like this one: GI Kills Suicide Bomber Who Attacked Hotel. (Hat tip: beernut.)

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. soldier shot and killed one of three suicide bombers who attacked the Palestine Hotel complex before he could reach his intended target and that probably saved lives in the building, the military said Saturday. ...

The attack involved three suicide car bombs. The first blew a hole in a cement wall protecting the complex. The second car exploded nearby as a possible diversion. Then a large cement mixer drove into the complex through the hole in the wall and exploded on a small road between the Palestine Hotel and the Sheraton Hotel, two 17-story buildings.

Video from a surveillance camera at the Palestine Hotel showed the cement truck was fired on by a U.S. soldier from inside the compound. Around the same time, the vehicle also was seen rocking back and forth before it exploded, possibly because it was stuck on barbed wire or had collided with a small concrete barrier in the road.

The military said in a statement that one of its soldiers had killed the driver before he could reach the front entrance of the Palestine Hotel, where the journalists are based. Spc. Darrell Green, a machine gunner, was guarding the complex from an observation post at the Sheraton Hotel when insurgents began their attack, the military said.

As the dust and debris cleared from the first car bombing at the complex wall, Green saw the cement truck enter and drive in about 50 feet, the military said. “As he shot and killed the driver, preventing the vehicle from going any further, the truck detonated,” the statement said. The truck and its driver were obliterated by the powerful blast, making it impossible to know whether the explosives had been set off by a timer or by the driver before he died.

In an interview with The Associated Press, U.S. Sgt. 1st Class David Abrams said that for security reasons he couldn’t say exactly where Green was in the complex during the attack. But he said Green had fired from an elevated position using an optic device that gave him a clear view of his machine-gun rounds hitting and killing the driver.

“He was trying to kill people,” Green was quoted as saying. “It was good we stopped him because he would have killed more people and destroyed the building.”

CENTCOM released this information five days ago.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Links at site, be sure to check out the last, you'll understand why so much is 'underreported.':

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18039_GI_Saved_Journalists_at_Palestine_Hotel&only

WOW! great link,,,that girl in the tank top looks HOT !!!!!!!!!

 

[KarlMarx]

I think it may be time to withdraw our troops. Not because what we are doing in Iraq is wrong, but because it seems inevitable with a majority of americans against the war and a projected time of 10 years to defeat the insurgency inside Iraq. I do not see the resolve to stay.

According to recent polls, http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm , Americans are increasingly saying that the war has not been worth it and 52% say a timetable should be implemented.

General Casey said that these insurgencies generally go on for 10 years. After only two years of fighting, the majority of Americans are already saying it was not worth it.

How much longer will it be before support for the war erodes until a president has to withdraw troops? Rumsfeld and other Bush officials have stated that success in Iraq means a viable democracy. Historically, it is improbable that a democracy can get a real foothold in Iraq in the next 10 years in such an unstable environment.

I do not think my point can be easily dismissed. No matter what side you're on, its undeniable that the willpower to stay in Iraq is fading, but what do you think? Is there any foreseeable way that American support might increase, or any future progress in Iraq to support staying?

True, support for "hot" wars have not been long term. Historically, however, support for a long term military presence in a foreign country has had nothing to do with public opinion, since they mostly are little more than police actions. We have troops in Kosovo for the past 11 years and Korea for the past 50. We also had American troops in Europe for about 50 years, too. In the end, if we stay the course in Iraq, we will prevail in our goal of bringing stablity to the Middle East and ensuring that American interests in that area remain safe.

A. I believe that we will eventually start reducing troop strength (probably within the next two years, but probably sooner), but we will still keep a presence in the country, in vastly reduced numbers (similar to the situations I listed above)
B. In addition, we will have bases in the country, so that we can keep an eye on things in the Middle East.

I see the Iraq conflict as being part of a much larger one. Similar to a 2nd cold war, not fought with bullets, but with ideas.

Let's face it, the Saudis are corrupt, not our friends, are state sponsors of terrorism and cannot be relied upon if we should find ourselves needing a place to launch any military operations. The same can be said of the Pakistanis.

From a strategic standpoint, occupying Iraq was not a bad choice, it has very long range consequences in our favor. We now have an ally in the region that gives us access to Syria, Iran, the Persian Gulf.

In addition, we must start pressuring European countries to do something about the growing problem of large populations of militant Moslems who advocate overthrow of the governments of those countries and replacing them with caliphates or mullah-cracies.

We must also put a lot of pressure on the Saudis and Pakistanis to do a lot more to stop the spread of the Wahabbi sect of Islam. Currently, they are doing nothing to stop it, but everything to encourage its spread.

 

[Annie]

True, support for "hot" wars have been long term. Historically, however, support for a long term military presence in a foreign country has had nothing to do with public opinion, since they mostly are little more than police actions. We have troops in Kosovo for the past 11 years and Korea for the past 50. We also had American troops in Europe for about 50 years, too. In the end, if we stay the course in Iraq, we will prevail in our goal of bringing stablity to the Middle East and ensuring that American interests in that area remain safe.

A. I believe that we will eventually start reducing troop strength (probably within the next two years, but probably sooner), but we will still keep a presence in the country, in vastly reduced numbers (similar to the situations I listed above)
B. In addition, we will have bases in the country, so that we can keep an eye on things in the Middle East.

I see the Iraq conflict as being part of a much larger one. Similar to a 2nd cold war, not fought with bullets, but with ideas.

Let's face it, the Saudis are corrupt, not our friends, are state sponsors of terrorism and cannot be relied upon if we should find ourselves needing a place to launch any military operations. The same can be said of the Pakistanis.

From a strategic standpoint, occupying Iraq was not a bad choice, it has very long range consequences in our favor. We now have an ally in the region that gives us access to Syria, Iran, the Persian Gulf.

In addition, we must start pressuring European countries to do something about the growing problem of large populations of militant Moslems who advocate overthrow of the governments of those countries and replacing them with caliphates or mullah-cracies.

We must also put a lot of pressure on the Saudis and Pakistanis to do a lot more to stop the spread of the Wahabbi sect of Islam. Currently, the are doing nothing to stop it, but everything to encourage its spread.