16 intell groups report on Iarq

[Truthmatters]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/17854.html

well things aint so good guys.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

it took a long time to rebuild europe didnt it?

i aint say its going great, but leaving wont make it better will it ?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/17854.html

well things aint so good guys.

 

[Rosotar]

it took a long time to rebuild europe didnt it?

i aint say its going great, but leaving wont make it better will it ?

Probably not.

But it will stop this slow bleed of US troops.

 

[Gem]

But will it cause even greater problems down the road?

My concern when listening to those who what withdraw at this point is the lack of discussion I have seen regarding what might happen because of this withdraw. Will it be positive? Negative? If positive, what will be positive? Do we believe that leaving Iraq will help it somehow? Or are we simply leaving because we don't believe that we can help in any way? If negative, will it be worse than if we stayed and attempted to help/force the Iraqi government to step it up?

I suppose the difficult moral question is: Are the lives of the American troops we are losing in a "slow bleed" as you call it, more important than potential problems withdraw will cause for our nation down the road?

If we withdraw, and the upheaval an unstable Iraq causes forces America into military action in the future...will the lives we saved today be worth the lives we lose in the future?

 

[Rosotar]

But will it cause even greater problems down the road?

My concern when listening to those who what withdraw at this point is the lack of discussion I have seen regarding what might happen because of this withdraw. Will it be positive? Negative? If positive, what will be positive? Do we believe that leaving Iraq will help it somehow? Or are we simply leaving because we don't believe that we can help in any way? If negative, will it be worse than if we stayed and attempted to help/force the Iraqi government to step it up?

I suppose the difficult moral question is: Are the lives of the American troops we are losing in a "slow bleed" as you call it, more important than potential problems withdraw will cause for our nation down the road?

If we withdraw, and the upheaval an unstable Iraq causes forces America into military action in the future...will the lives we saved today be worth the lives we lose in the future?

Excellent questions!

Unfortunately they are all moot points that should have been considered BEFORE we invaded.

The bottom line is what ever happens to Iraq when we leave will be George Bush's legacy alone.

 

[Gem]

Rosotar Wrote:

Excellent questions!

Unfortunately they are all moot points that should have been considered BEFORE we invaded.

The bottom line is what ever happens to Iraq when we leave will be George Bush's legacy alone.

Thanks for the compliment - but I can't disagree more that these issues are moot. This is the issue we now face...what will happen if we leave...what will happen if we stay...if we leave what do we have to do to make sure we don't end up in even bigger trouble than we are in now...if we stay how do we make sure we accomplish what we need to?

As far as considering these issue before...I think that is the moot point. You can not know the outcome of a war before you enter it. Assuming that you can is nonsense. FDR had no clue how WWII would end or what the United States would do before the country got involved...he simply knew that the nation couldn't allow Germany to beat Britian...hence why he was illegally supplying Great Britain with arms and supplies well before the US officially entered the war. If he had stopped and said, "Gee...if I help Churchill out before officially entering the war...that might have consequences...lets sit and think out what those consequences might be and what we should do about it...lets consider all possible options so we don't end up in trouble at the end..." then Germany would have marched straight into London before we ever made a move against them.

That isn't to say that I don't think that post-war planning in this war was abysmmal...it was. It doesn't mean that I don't think the Bush Adminsitration's understanding of the region was laughable...it was, and that was shown again and again with the flubs and mistakes made that could have been avoided (the looting, Al-Sadr, Abu Ghraib, etc).

But to state that because mistakes were made before we got involved we can no longer do anything but run away and do nothing - all but ensuring that the region will go to hell in a handbasket - seems particularly nonsensical to me.

The war will be Bush's legacy. But this country will be dealing with its outcomes far after Bush is pushing up daisies in his garden in Crawford.

 

[Bullypulpit]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/17854.html

well things aint so good guys.

That report being from the Federal Department of No-Shit-Sherlock. Bush's Iraq policy has been in doubt since the first seconds of "Shock and Awe".

 

[Bullypulpit]

Rosotar Wrote:

Thanks for the compliment - but I can't disagree more that these issues are moot. This is the issue we now face...what will happen if we leave...what will happen if we stay...if we leave what do we have to do to make sure we don't end up in even bigger trouble than we are in now...if we stay how do we make sure we accomplish what we need to?

As far as considering these issue before...I think that is the moot point. You can not know the outcome of a war before you enter it. Assuming that you can is nonsense. FDR had no clue how WWII would end or what the United States would do before the country got involved...he simply knew that the nation couldn't allow Germany to beat Britian...hence why he was illegally supplying Great Britain with arms and supplies well before the US officially entered the war. If he had stopped and said, "Gee...if I help Churchill out before officially entering the war...that might have consequences...lets sit and think out what those consequences might be and what we should do about it...lets consider all possible options so we don't end up in trouble at the end..." then Germany would have marched straight into London before we ever made a move against them.

That isn't to say that I don't think that post-war planning in this war was abysmmal...it was. It doesn't mean that I don't think the Bush Adminsitration's understanding of the region was laughable...it was, and that was shown again and again with the flubs and mistakes made that could have been avoided (the looting, Al-Sadr, Abu Ghraib, etc).

But to state that because mistakes were made before we got involved we can no longer do anything but run away and do nothing - all but ensuring that the region will go to hell in a handbasket - seems particularly nonsensical to me.

The war will be Bush's legacy. But this country will be dealing with its outcomes far after Bush is pushing up daisies in his garden in Crawford.

Bush's policy renders them moot. He won't even consider bringing the other players in the region to the table to discuss helping with the stabilization of Iraq. He keeps throwing the military at a problem which is simply beyond the scope of the military. Until Bush either accepts that no military solution is probable, or is has some epiphany that he was wrong to ever go into Iraq in the first place, we will continue to see the sectarian violence with OUR troops caught in the middle.

 

[onedomino]

Excellent questions!

Unfortunately they are all moot points that should have been considered BEFORE we invaded.

The bottom line is what ever happens to Iraq when we leave will be George Bush's legacy alone.

Moot points? Absurd. The hatred that the Left has for Bush overwhelms any consideration of the future of the Middle East. The Left could care less if genocide or regional war get played out in Iraq after US defeat and withdrawal.

 

[DeadCanDance]

The fundamental outcome of this thing was pre-ordained the minute George decided to invade and occupy iraq. A lot of people predicted exactly what would happen, and unfortunately they were laughed off.

A significant portion of the iraqis were never going to welcome american troops on their soil. And most of the ones who do want to work with us, don't want to be seen as collaborators with us americans. Or, at least they're not willing to risk their necks for us.

Chaos and a civil war were predicted by many people familiar with the region. There is no way to salvage a "victory". Whatever "victory" even means at this point: there will not be a pro-american, jeffersonian democracy in iraq. We will not be welcome there as guests or liberators anytime for the foreseeable future. We created MORE terrorists and insurgents merely by the prescence of 150k troops there. And there's nothing an american military force can do to stop a civil war. That's going to be up to the iraqis.

And frankly, I find the argument that it "might get worse if we leave" to be weak and unpersuasive. There is not going to be any american military solution here.

 

[Gem]

Bullypulpit Wrote:

Bush's policy renders them moot. He won't even consider bringing the other players in the region to the table to discuss helping with the stabilization of Iraq. He keeps throwing the military at a problem which is simply beyond the scope of the military. Until Bush either accepts that no military solution is probable, or is has some epiphany that he was wrong to ever go into Iraq in the first place, we will continue to see the sectarian violence with OUR troops caught in the middle.

No - the Bush Administration choosing an option that we do not agree with does not render conversation and debate about other options moot - it just means that our options, however brilliant and insightful might not be heard while Bush is in office.

Pulling out of Iraq now with no "strategy" or thought to what could happen in the aftermath is just as inane as going into Iraq with no thought or concept about the potential outcomes such an action would bring. It would save American lives - that is true, and not unimportant - but if it means putting more American lives at risk down the road due to the chaos and instability we would leave...then is it the best option? Or is the best option to form a new plan of dealing with the Iraq situation - rather than simply running away from it like a kid who broke something in a store and hopes that if he can get to the other side of the store as quickly as possible - he won't be blamed for the mess?

 

[Annie]

Excellent questions!

Unfortunately they are all moot points that should have been considered BEFORE we invaded.

The bottom line is what ever happens to Iraq when we leave will be George Bush's legacy alone.

Not if Congress cuts out the funding, then it will be Congress holding the bag. Not likely to happen.

So do you really think if Hillary or another Democrat is elected they will pull out? Not going to happen.

 

[Annie]

The fundamental outcome of this thing was pre-ordained the minute George decided to invade and occupy iraq. A lot of people predicted exactly what would happen, and unfortunately they were laughed off.

A significant portion of the iraqis were never going to welcome american troops on their soil. And most of the ones who do want to work with us, don't want to be seen as collaborators with us americans. Or, at least they're not willing to risk their necks for us.

Chaos and a civil war were predicted by many people familiar with the region. There is no way to salvage a "victory". Whatever "victory" even means at this point: there will not be a pro-american, jeffersonian democracy in iraq. We will not be welcome there as guests or liberators anytime for the foreseeable future. We created MORE terrorists and insurgents merely by the prescence of 150k troops there. And there's nothing an american military force can do to stop a civil war. That's going to be up to the iraqis.

And frankly, I find the argument that it "might get worse if we leave" to be weak and unpersuasive. There is not going to be any american military solution here.

Where were those predictions, the bolded part of my response? I remember lots of predictions of US casualties in the mega thousands through gassing and such. Well here we are nearly 4 years later with about 3k us dead. So where do you find those that predicted what has occered?

 

[DeadCanDance]

Where were those predictions, the bolded part of my response? I remember lots of predictions of US casualties in the mega thousands through gassing and such. Well here we are nearly 4 years later with about 3k us dead. So where do you find those that predicted what has occered?

"Where were those predictions, the bolded part of my response?"

read on....

They Told You So

The New York Times
Friday 08 December 2006

Representative Nancy Pelosi, now the House speaker-elect, October 2002: "When we go in, the occupation, which is now being called the liberation, could be interminable and the amount of money it costs could be unlimited."

Howard Dean, then a candidate for president and now the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, February 2003: "I firmly believe that the president is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time. ... Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms."

Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in 1998 why they didn't go on to Baghdad in 1991: "Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
*************************************************
The New York Times
Friday 08 December 2006

Shortly after U.S. forces marched into Baghdad in 2003, The Weekly Standard published a jeering article titled, "The Cassandra Chronicles: The stupidity of the antiwar doomsayers." Among those the article mocked was a "war novelist" named James Webb, who is now the senator-elect from Virginia.

The article's title was more revealing than its authors knew. People forget the nature of Cassandra's curse: although nobody would believe her, all her prophecies came true.

And so it was with those who warned against invading Iraq. At best, they were ignored. A recent article in The Washington Post ruefully conceded that the paper's account of the debate in the House of Representatives over the resolution authorizing the Iraq war - a resolution opposed by a majority of the Democrats - gave no coverage at all to those antiwar arguments that now seem prescient.

At worst, those who were skeptical about the case for war had their patriotism and/or their sanity questioned. The New Republic now says that it "deeply regrets its early support for this war." Does it also deeply regret accusing those who opposed rushing into war of "abject pacifism?"

Now, only a few neocon dead-enders still believe that this war was anything but a vast exercise in folly. And those who braved political pressure and ridicule to oppose what Al Gore has rightly called "the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States" deserve some credit.

Unlike The Weekly Standard, which singled out those it thought had been proved wrong, I'd like to offer some praise to those who got it right. Here's a partial honor roll:

Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in 1998 why they didn't go on to Baghdad in 1991: "Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Representative Ike Skelton, September 2002: "I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it."

Al Gore, September 2002: "I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."

Barack Obama, now a United States senator, September 2002: "I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

Representative John Spratt, October 2002: "The outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain."


snip

continued

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/67/24361

 

[Annie]

"Where were those predictions, the bolded part of my response?"

read on....

No, the ones that said what is happening would happen. GW said we'd be there for years. I'm looking for the many that saw the sectarian violence, al Qaeda moving in, Saudis going to Syria to make war in Iraq. You know, those links.

 

[Diuretic]

Bush is buggered. He hasn't got a clue what to do so his tactic is to stonewall and delay and get more lipstick out for the pig. What he will do is try to hang tough until the end of his term, he can then walk away from the disaster he created and leave it to someone else to clean up after him.

And any comparisons between this debacle and a real war are vacuous. This was an invasion of a sovereign state - please try to avoid bringing up the various reasons for the invasion, they really are moot about now - and an occupation by hostile forces. Now that's a big ask for anyone and frankly it's failed.

What has happened is that an incompetent and corrupt government has been installed in Iraq. That incompetent and corrupt government is sitting on its fat, collective arse while other countries personnel fight and die for it. The invasion and occupation has galvanised anti-Western Islamicists around the world.

I fully agree that politics should be booted out of this in the search for how this mess is going to be fixed.

 

[Rosotar]

No, the ones that said what is happening would happen. GW said we'd be there for years. I'm looking for the many that saw the sectarian violence, al Qaeda moving in, Saudis going to Syria to make war in Iraq. You know, those links.

How about Colin Powell's "pottery barn rule?"

"YOU BREAK IT YOU OWN IT!"

 

[Annie]

How about Colin Powell's "pottery barn rule?"

"YOU BREAK IT YOU OWN IT!"

At the time, Colin Powell was 110% behind Bush, now he's of a different ilk. So no, wasn't speaking of him. Was speaking of the Democrats that KNEW what was going to happen, that happened. I have no recall of their calls.

 

[DeadCanDance]

No, the ones that said what is happening would happen. GW said we'd be there for years. I'm looking for the many that saw the sectarian violence, al Qaeda moving in, Saudis going to Syria to make war in Iraq. You know, those links.

This is what you asked me to prove: I said: "A lot of people predicted exactly what would happen, and unfortunately they were laughed off."

-The Bush Supporter Prediction: Paul Wolfowitz, 2003: "The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."....In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...agoncontra.htm

-The Anti-war Prediction: Representative Nancy Pelosi, now the House speaker-elect, October 2002: "When we go in, the occupation, which is now being called the liberation, could be interminable and the amount of money it costs could be unlimited."

-The Bush supporter Prediction: Weekly Standard editor William Kristol: “There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. “

-The Anti-war Prediction: Howard Dean, then a candidate for president and now the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, February 2003: "I firmly believe that the president is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time. ... Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms."

-The Bush supporter Prediction: Before the invasion, for example, U.S. intelligence agencies were persistent and unified in warning the Defense Department that Iraqis would resort to "armed opposition" after the war was over. The Army's chief of staff warned that a larger stability force would be needed. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his team disagreed, confident that Iraqi military and police units would help secure a welcoming nation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jul23.html


-The Anti-war Prediction: Brent Scowcroft,[ explaining in 1998 why they didn't go on to Baghdad in 1991: "Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

 

[Gunny]

The fundamental outcome of this thing was pre-ordained the minute George decided to invade and occupy iraq. A lot of people predicted exactly what would happen, and unfortunately they were laughed off.

A significant portion of the iraqis were never going to welcome american troops on their soil. And most of the ones who do want to work with us, don't want to be seen as collaborators with us americans. Or, at least they're not willing to risk their necks for us.

Chaos and a civil war were predicted by many people familiar with the region. There is no way to salvage a "victory". Whatever "victory" even means at this point: there will not be a pro-american, jeffersonian democracy in iraq. We will not be welcome there as guests or liberators anytime for the foreseeable future. We created MORE terrorists and insurgents merely by the prescence of 150k troops there. And there's nothing an american military force can do to stop a civil war. That's going to be up to the iraqis.

And frankly, I find the argument that it "might get worse if we leave" to be weak and unpersuasive. There is not going to be any american military solution here.

You're wrong. We could salvage a victory. Just need some pussies to shut up and let the military do the job they're trained to do without all the wah wah back here.