Could Iraq EVER been a success?

[Jennifer.Bush]

clearly, Iraq is a mess, and i don't think it will ever get better.
But more importantly could iraq ever been great. Could we have sweep in
and then 1 yr everything been great?

 

[boedicca]

Nobody in their right mind ever thought that we would have an instant gratification type of success in Iraq. If that is your criteria, then there is no point in responding.

 

[Shogun]

I think that the historic reality of social trends indicate that the answer is yes.

Hell, look at the Kurds...

I think that Iraq would have been an easier pill to swallow had half of the US not ended up feeling like they had been bait and switched during a particularly emotional time after 9/11. Im not sure that "kill em all" strategies seem to work with indegenous populations even if the motivation is essentially noble.

I would do two things in order to polish the turd that is the Iraq war...

first, create a westernized city where iraqis who want western culture can go to in order to acclimate and advance their living situation. This keeps us from having to patrol areas that seem to be too porous to control AND creates a working example of the benefits of the west in one defendable location rather than frustrating the iraqis with limited basic resources.. Also, it would allow a secure location to train those who wouldotherwise be on board and seperate them from negative peer influence.

second, build a peace offering to muslims in the form of a place of worship where we can convey that we are not there for domination of their culture so much as there to help them preserve their culture without some angry dictator. This, and the created central location would be the "reward", so to speak, to those who have chosen to side with us and democracy and would give relevant exposure and experience to a working democracy and the benefits of modernization...


what do you think? feel free to call me crazy.

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

Nobody in their right mind ever thought that we would have an instant gratification type of success in Iraq. If that is your criteria, then there is no point in responding.

smh
i never said that, what i'm saying is could the sectarian volence never happen? i mean of course there will be al-queda, but i never
thought that iraqis themsleves would kill each other

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

I think that the historic reality of social trends indicate that the answer is yes.

Hell, look at the Kurds...

I think that Iraq would have been an easier pill to swallow had half of the US not ended up feeling like they had been bait and switched during a particularly emotional time after 9/11. Im not sure that "kill em all" strategies seem to work with indegenous populations even if the motivation is essentially noble.

I would do two things in order to polish the turd that is the Iraq war...

first, create a westernized city where iraqis who want western culture can go to in order to acclimate and advance their living situation. This keeps us from having to patrol areas that seem to be too porous to control AND creates a working example of the benefits of the west in one defendable location rather than frustrating the iraqis with limited basic resources.. Also, it would allow a secure location to train those who wouldotherwise be on board and seperate them from negative peer influence.

second, build a peace offering to muslims in the form of a place of worship where we can convey that we are not there for domination of their culture so much as there to help them preserve their culture without some angry dictator. This, and the created central location would be the "reward", so to speak, to those who have chosen to side with us and democracy and would give relevant exposure and experience to a working democracy and the benefits of modernization...


what do you think? feel free to call me crazy.

i really disagree with your second part, we have do enoughdone.
We try not to shoot/destroy mosque even though our troops are being shot at from mosque
i mean if that is not a peace offereing then what is?

 

[boedicca]

It's very difficult to succeed in any war when the Loyal Opposition declares the effort is a quagmire from the get go, and then makes pronouncements such as these throughout:

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid said, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070419174958.d2ni8f1d&show_article=1

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

It's very difficult to succeed in any war when the Loyal Opposition declares the effort is a quagmire from the get go, and then makes pronouncements such as these throughout:

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid said, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070419174958.d2ni8f1d&show_article=1

well there will always be people against wars

 

[boedicca]

Being against a war is not the same as actively undermining the country's ability to be successful once the decision has been made. Congress approved this war. Reid's comments are shameful.

 

[Shogun]

i really disagree with your second part, we have do enoughdone.
We try not to shoot/destroy mosque even though our troops are being shot at from mosque
i mean if that is not a peace offereing then what is?

it is a matter of redirecting the motivations of those who we are there to help...

perspective is a bitch if peace is what you desire.... obviously there are many in iraq who dont see the benevolence of what you speak when they disagree with our presence in the first place. strategy doesnt always have to be about killing off those that dont agree with you.

im no christian but.. uh.. what did jesus say about the other cheak?

 

[Annie]

smh
i never said that, what i'm saying is could the sectarian volence never happen? i mean of course there will be al-queda, but i never
thought that iraqis themsleves would kill each other

I think that Iraq has the possibility of success, still. However, I never thought it would be in a year and always thought the coalition would have to find a way to neutralize/minimize the differences between the 3 areas. How could you have not? More importantly, how could the administration have taken so long to respond to the inevitable?

 

[maineman]

It's very difficult to succeed in any war when the Loyal Opposition declares the effort is a quagmire from the get go, and then makes pronouncements such as these throughout:

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid said, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070419174958.d2ni8f1d&show_article=1

nice touch...the war is a failure, not because it was poorly planned, poorly executed, not because there was seemingly zero effort made to anticipate anything other than unrealistic rosy scenarios....no. the war is a failure because democrats point those things out. what color is the sky in your world?

 

[maineman]

and sooner or later, America is going to wake up and realize that this moronic conflating of Iraq and the war against islamic extremists has done us NO good. I am all for fighting the people who are our real enemies. The sunnis and the shiites in Iraq are NOW our enemies for one reason only: we shocked and awed them, invaded them, conquered them and continue to occupy them. Fucking stupid is what it is.

 

[Dr Grump]

The answer is no. It never would have been a success. It would never have bene a success pre invasion, during the mop up, or post invasion. It will never be a success as long as there are three different ethnic/religious groups in the country. How long the civil was will last after the Yanks pull out is anybody's guess - couple of decades maybe?

 

[hjmick]

Can Iraq ever be a success?

Yes, when they finally decide to divide the country into three smaller countries seperating the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, all with equal shares of the oil profits. Then, maybe, just maybe, it will be a success.

 

[Diuretic]

clearly, Iraq is a mess, and i don't think it will ever get better.
But more importantly could iraq ever been great. Could we have sweep in
and then 1 yr everything been great?

Depends on your definition of "success". If the objective was to secure Iraq's oil then it's getting there. The legislation that hands over Iraqi oil to international oil companies is almost there. I also heard today that there have been new oil deposits identified in western Iraq that suggests that they have more oil than Saudi Arabia. If that oil is secured also then that would seem to suggest that if the objective were to get Iraq's oil then it's almost a done deal.

Of course if the objective was to find WMD then it failed, there were none. If the objective were to establish democracy in Iraq then that failed as well, seeing as it's heading towards being a Shi'ite theocracy like Iran.

 

[red states rule]

Iraq will never be a success as long as Dems continue to "support" the troops


How Pelosi 'supports the troops'
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
April 20, 2007


It's doubtful that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will become any less obstructionist in the wake of Wednesday's White House talks with President Bush on the Iraq/Afghanistan war supplemental funding bill. For all their eloquence about how they "support the troops," Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Reid and their Democratic colleagues have embarked on a course that will inevitably delay much-needed reinforcement for the men and women on the ground in Iraq.
As of yesterday morning, Mrs. Pelosi had refused to even appoint House conferees to negotiate with the Senate over the Iraq. As we previously noted, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and eight of his Republican colleagues sent Mrs. Pelosi a letter criticizing her failure to appoint conferees to work on the legislation. The letter quoted Defense Secretary Robert Gates warning that continued delay would damage readiness and "impose hardships on our soldiers." Noting that the Senate had already returned from vacation, Mr. McConnell and his colleagues asked Mrs. Pelosi to cancel the remainder of the House vacation in order to return to Washington and "work in good faith" to pass a supplemental bill the president could sign. Mrs. Pelosi ignored them.
As Mrs. Pelosi continued to delay appointing conferees (the Senate made its appointments last month), the military warns of a fiscal squeeze that left unaddressed, could undermine the ability of troops in the field to do their job. "I am also frustrated that we don't get our appropriations on time," Gen. Richard Cody, Army vice chief of staff, told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense (chaired by Rep. John Murtha, a Pelosi confidante) on Tuesday. "Our troops deserve better. We're throttle-back, and the last place we want to scale back is Afghanistan and Iraq." The delay also jeopardizes funding for weapons, and a spending slowdown would hurt the readiness of units that are not deployed, he said.
In response to these concerns, the Democrats cite a report by the Congressional Research Service which suggests that under certain scenarios, the Army has enough money to make it through July. But as the Weekly Standard demonstrates on its blog, the same report says the Army "may very well" decide to to take actions such as "limiting facility maintenance and repairs" and "delaying equipment overhauls" and "perhaps slowing down training." This is hardly reassuring. Some House Democrats are even suggesting they would only agree to provide money in two-month increments, which would disrupt the Defense Department's ability to plan long-term operations.
In sum, for all their professed regard for the troops on the ground, Democrats appear perfectly willing to see combat operations disrupted and troops going without needed supplies in order to score some political points against the president.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070419-083406-9614r.htm

 

[maineman]

Iraq is a failure because the entire concept behind was fatally flawed from the git-go. Establishing a multicultural jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the euphrates river was always a silly pipedream with no real chance for success.

Iraq is a failure because the execution of that fatally flawed concept has been inept. Rummy and Dubya failed to listen to their generals who told them that fighting this war on the cheap was the wrong way and that holding ground once taken would be critical and could not be accomplished with the bare minimums of troop levels.

Iraq is a failure because sunnis and shiites are not willing to sit down with each other just yet and figure out a way to stop slaughtering one another.

Iraq is NOT a failure simply because democrats have shined a light on those errors.

 

[red states rule]

I am sure the troops like to hear they are losers, terrorists, Nazi's, Pol Pot like, and murderers by libs

Gotta love that "support"

 

[maineman]

I am sure the troops like to hear they are losers, terrorists, Nazi's, Pol Pot like, and murderers by libs

Gotta love that "support"

I have never called them anything but heroes...

I am sure that they like being sent into hostile territory on fool's missions with zero chance of success planned by morons... my guess is: that kind of "support" is what they can really do without!

 

[red states rule]

I have never called them anything but heroes...

I am sure that they like being sent into hostile territory on fool's missions with zero chance of success planned by morons... my guess is: that kind of "support" is what they can really do without!

Alot of your elected Dems have smeared them - you defend them (as always)

You openly hoped for failure in Iraq

Some support from the left