If Iraq is going well, and the 'surge' has been working...

[Bern80]

We should have referred to the constitution, and seen that the only legal means of going to war is congressionally DECLARING it. Declare it, go fight it, win it, tell the American people that the mission was accomplished, and COME HOME. We don't need 160,000 troops continually put into harms way while the country is reconstructed. Cheney has known for years though, that were we to actually commit to an occupation, that the consequences would be disasterous. We need our military HERE right now, defending our OWN borders.

What is happening right now in Iraq was expected. It's sad that congress at large didn't have the balls to stand up and admit it.

congress voted for the use of force, overwhelmingly. What exactley is unconstitutional about that?

What is the clear and present danger at our borders that our troops hould be defending?

Do you not see what an accomplishment and changeing point in hisotry it would be to have democratic, pro-west ally in the middle the east?

Again, you aren't interested in 'improveing' anything. Simply bringing troops home improves nothing, while ignore that a decrease in violence in the region only improves chances of creating a free iraq.

 

[Paulie]

congress voted for the use of force, overwhelmingly. What exactley is unconstitutional about that?

EVERYTHING. They voted to authorize the president to use force at his desire. That's not the constitutional way to go to war, that's giving the executive branch a power they were never intended to have. The president doesn't declare war, the congress does. Congress didn't do that. They declared the president as the war declarer, for all intents and purposes. This sets a precedence now for the executive branch to launch a war at their desire. Bush and Cheney can bomb Iran now, without the check and balance of congress.

What is the clear and present danger at our borders that our troops hould be defending?

The invasion of illegal immigrants, Bern. It is clear, it is present, and it is dangerous. We are fighting a war to supposedly keep terrorists from being able to adequately organize, plan, and obtain weapons, to be able to attack us again, right? Well how can that possibly be achieved if our own front door is left unlocked? How are we to know whether or not one of those illegal aliens that crosses our border doesn't possess the materials needed to attack us? If all people were entering this country through the proper channels, they wouldn't be able to perhaps smuggle in nuclear materials.

It's a similar situation at our ports. The security there is nowhere near where it should be to prevent the deliberate or accidental smuggling in of potential weapons to be used against us.

Do you not see what an accomplishment and changeing point in hisotry it would be to have democratic, pro-west ally in the middle the east?

I guess that would really depend on whether or not I believed that was the real agenda.

Again, you aren't interested in 'improveing' anything. Simply bringing troops home improves nothing, while ignore that a decrease in violence in the region only improves chances of creating a free iraq.

Iraq is free, and democratic now Bern. That's been established for a while now. That the people of Iraq can't manage to keep it that way and enjoy it, rather than derailing the progress, is not our fault. Sunni's and Shiites are historical warring factions of Islam. What do you think the US military is going to do about that?

Have you ever considered how Americans would react if the situation was reversed, and it was US who were being forced to accept the will of a foreign nation and occupier, all in the name of some ideology that we've never even been accustomed to living with? An invasion of communist Russia during the cold war comes to mind as an example. How would Americans have reacted to that, with Russia promoting it as spreading communism for the good of the world? We view communism in America as bad for the world. Well, it seems to be plainly obvious that the people of Iraq view our style of government as bad.

Or are they just crazy because they're Muslims?

 

[Bern80]

EVERYTHING. They voted to authorize the president to use force at his desire. That's not the constitutional way to go to war, that's giving the executive branch a power they were never intended to have. The president doesn't declare war, the congress does. Congress didn't do that. They declared the president as the war declarer, for all intents and purposes. This sets a precedence now for the executive branch to launch a war at their desire. Bush and Cheney can bomb Iran now, without the check and balance of congress.

See the War Powers Resolution of 1973

The invasion of illegal immigrants, Bern. It is clear, it is present, and it is dangerous. We are fighting a war to supposedly keep terrorists from being able to adequately organize, plan, and obtain weapons, to be able to attack us again, right? Well how can that possibly be achieved if our own front door is left unlocked? How are we to know whether or not one of those illegal aliens that crosses our border doesn't possess the materials needed to attack us? If all people were entering this country through the proper channels, they wouldn't be able to perhaps smuggle in nuclear materials.

It's a similar situation at our ports. The security there is nowhere near where it should be to prevent the deliberate or accidental smuggling in of potential weapons to be used against us.

Yes, yes we hear that all the time in the media. Think about the logic behind what you're implying for just a second. 1) that if not in Iraq are troops would be doing border patrol in some large capacity. Not likely. I can't recall teh last I heard anyone in congress or the media cry "if not for the war in Iraq we could be using our troops to help battle illegals".

In what specific capacity do you see our troops playing a role in illegal immigration? You foresee the left of this country allowing troops to round up illegals? or even server as border patrol? I think not

Iraq is free, and democratic now Bern. That's been established for a while now. That the people of Iraq can't manage to keep it that way and enjoy it, rather than derailing the progress, is not our fault. Sunni's and Shiites are historical warring factions of Islam. What do you think the US military is going to do about that?

Then by definition, no they are not free or democratic at this point. You can say they are a democracy all you want, but that requires a level of participation by the people and right now the people aren't participating. Have you ever considered that the reason they fight has a large part to do with the fact they have never had a taste of freedom? That perhaps they have no concept of the fact that life can be significantly better for all if they particpate more in their freedom then in warring? And that perhaps the reason we are trying to quell violence is to show them the opportunities that exist if they aren't preoccupied with simply trying to not be killed?

Have you ever considered how Americans would react if the situation was reversed, and it was US who were being forced to accept the will of a foreign nation and occupier, all in the name of some ideology that we've never even been accustomed to living with? An invasion of communist Russia during the cold war comes to mind as an example. How would Americans have reacted to that, with Russia promoting it as spreading communism for the good of the world? We view communism in America as bad for the world. Well, it seems to be plainly obvious that the people of Iraq view our style of government as bad.

Or are they just crazy because they're Muslims?

We aren't forcing our 'will' on anyone. Our purpose there is keep people from killing each other and establish stability so they can form a working government. That isn't forcing our will on anyone. As of yet, we have not been asked to leave by the Iraqi government.

 

[DiogenesDog]

Additionally, I presume from your posts that you are no longer in the intel business. Based on your post here (specifically regaqrding the intelligence on Chinese efforts) you may want to consider that there could possibly be some very good reasons (though not disclosable ones) why the US engaged in Iraq and continues to remain there. Is that not possible in your estimation?

Yes. There was a very good reason that Saddamastan (41s description of Iraq) needed to be overrun and briefly occupied. The archives there were full of the history of his rise to power with OGA (Other Government Agency), wink-wink. Saddam had pictures, movie documentation, communications, and odd bits of documentation that would have been quite ugly to have released to the court of world opinion. Iraq was no Laos or Cambodia. It was no point of entry for any state entity with bag enough to invade without a nod from the US. Saddam's enemies in the region were more than enough to keep him in check after the Kuwait debacle.

I do believe SMAJ that you test me a bit here looking for some weakness in my line of thought.

I will continue with . . .

The dismissal of Saddam by the US invasion was risky and audacious. It was a work of genius by a superior military force right down to the capture of the cheeky rascal. At the announcement of "mission accomplished" our forces should have been in a state of departure. But, no, there was another agenda that was straining to be let loose by those now discreditable Neo-Conservatives. This left handed victory has been a fever dream of Lord Cheney and the Earl of Rumsfeld and Baron Wolfowitz (See "Rise of the Vulcans", James Mann).

No, I have no discerning clue that the fractionalization of the State formerly known as Iraq has any deep strategic value. It did give the Kurds some breathing room. (I am a little guy fan.) And it did break the iron tie of injustice of a dominant minority Sunni regime over a Shia minority. Those outcomes put the province of Basra in the Iranian column of client states but it also gave the Kurds an opportunity to consolidate a position in both Turkey and Iran. Turkey is pissed and Iran fears the establishment of a reorganized Kurdistan with a capital at Tabriz.

Do you have something in the back of your very capable mind that would support a hint of some strategic value to our current "a waste of damn fine infantry"? (Patton on observing Rommel's brave but murderous frontal assault against well prepared, fresh American and British forces. Or, was that just a movie script line?)

Our forces are dwindling from attrition. America is not at war, the Army and the Marines are at war. America is in the mall or watching the play offs. (anon.) Noone (Scot's usage) are rallying to the ranks and the cause. My Marine says that the term "Dead man walking" has been taken on as a deep fatalistic greeting.

If there was something of value to be found in much of this adventurism, I would be the first to acknowledge it.

Soldiers do as they are ordered. Politicians do as they will at the behest of the highest bidder.

I do research and analysis. I learn languages. I speak with people in the hinterlands. I avoid paved roads. I actually sniff the wind of any place in which I stand. I am 63 and I affirm that I have at least 40 more years of doing just what I like to do. I do want to trek in the Middle East again without having to be taken as someones enemy, religious or otherwise.

So, the short answer is, No, I detect no honest strategic value. Could you suggest one or more? I am stumped.

I AM

 

[DiogenesDog]

Bern80
Registered User
We aren't forcing our 'will' on anyone. Our purpose there is keep (sic.) people from killing each other and establish stability so they can form a working government. That isn't forcing our will on anyone. As of yet, we have not been asked to leave by the Iraqi government.

He said with Eyes (and mind) Wide Shut in a state of pious certitude.

This administration thinks that anyone smart enough to deal with our adversaries and bring them to heel by other means are smart enough to be a danger to their dodgey agenda. This has become an issue not of the prating on of some talking head or other press officer toeing the line, but rather a point of deep concern for some Iowa farmer who has to redo his profit/loss spreadsheet and hope for better days. There is a great divide of between the common sense of the man on the ground and the bottom feeder hedge fund worms who steal value from the little guy and pass it on to the phat cat.

Word.

I AM

 

[CSM]

So, the short answer is, No, I detect no honest strategic value. Could you suggest one or more? I am stumped.

I AM

Pure speculation on my part but an occupied Iraq gives the US a strategic foothold (I suspect the powers that be wanted a stronghold but alas...) in the Middle East with no ties (and the resulting entanglements) to Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. Such an occupation also could indirectly provides some influence on oil markets (particularly with China) and the international arms market (some European countries, Russia, Pakistan, and perhaps even Israel). I mention the arms market because there are valid concerns over nuclear weapons becoming prolific in that region. I do not think Iraq had nukes (though I believe they wanted them) but there are other neighboring countries that certainly were (and continue to seek) nuclear weapon capability.

I am in agreement that once Saddam had been captured, the US should have redeployed the troops. Either that, or enough should have been sent in the first place to secure the borders and enforce martial law until such time a stable government could assume control. Post major military operations were (and still are IMO) poorly executed...not because of the troops but because (so it appears to me) of an unclear mission and indistinct strategic goals.

Your point regarding the Kurds is valid (it seems to me) and certainly provides both Iran and Turkey some food for thought.

I am uncertain of the veracity of Patton's quote....I wasn't around then though it seems in character from what I have read about the man. Perhaps a bit too "Patton-ish" so it could very well be a Hollywood caricature.

 

[Paulie]

^ CSM, I believe you meant to put the Dog's name in your quote. That wasn't me. No harm, no foul. just clearing it up.

See the War Powers Resolution of 1973

That legislation in itself is up for wide debate on it's constitutionality to begin with. It, and the people who defend the idea, alludes to the supposed vague wording in the constitution for congress' role in going to war: "Congress shall have the power to declare war", and what exactly is defined as a "declaration".

In the WPR, it states that the use of force to be granted, would be used for smaller purposes, first of all. Not for full scale invasions and subsequent nation building.

You could make the arguement that Congress "declared" war by authorizing Iraq, even though the legislation contains no official "declaration". But this still flies in the face of the WPR, especially in this case. When you declare war, you go fight it, and when you win it, you come home. Bush shot himself in the foot when he announced Mission Accomplished, because that means JUST THAT. You declared your war, you fought it, you won it, and you announced the mission was accomplished. The authorization is very vague on what the complete mission was going to be, but I really don't see anywhere in it where it authorizes a continued occupation. It states that the objective was to remove the regime, and install and promote a democratic one. We did that. It doesn't say anywhere in there about any continued role of our military after the new government is installed. There should have already been in place the plans for how the new temporary government was going to control the situation, but apparently that wasn't thought out. I'd say that based on that fact, and the fact that 70% of the American people want us to either leave now, or start largely scaling down troop levels, that the administration should being DOING that.

You can't announce that you won the war, and then announce that you're LOSING it, and trying to get back to WINNING it again. That's ridiculous. Where is the check and balance in that? This is the argument that people give about the constitutionality of this occupation. If we don't keep a hold on some type of constitutional limit to the occupation, then it could pretty much for all intents and purposes go on forever.

(about placing troops on our borders) Yes, yes we hear that all the time in the media. Think about the logic behind what you're implying for just a second. 1) that if not in Iraq are troops would be doing border patrol in some large capacity. Not likely. I can't recall teh last I heard anyone in congress or the media cry "if not for the war in Iraq we could be using our troops to help battle illegals".

Well then you're hearing it here first, I guess. I think it's a damn good idea, to tell you the truth. It's our military, right? We can use it however we see fit. We're being INVADED, Bern. By people who could potentially be bringing in weapons to use against us. Having 160,000 troops in Iraq is not stopping someone on the black market somewhere else in the world, from acquiring some type of material to use, and then smuggle it into our ridiculously porous borders.

In what specific capacity do you see our troops playing a role in illegal immigration? You foresee the left of this country allowing troops to round up illegals? or even server as border patrol? I think not

I don't think in terms of left or right. I don't believe left/right is anything other than division in this country. This is a national defense issue, whether you want to admit it or not. There should be no partisan bickering when deciding to secure our country.

I forsee Americans as a WHOLE allowing troops to not just "round up" illegals, but stand guard along the border and DEFEND it. When we lock OUR OWN door first, then maybe I'd be willing to support some type of military operation elsewhere in the world.

It would be pretty silly to live in, let's say, Marcy projects in Brooklyn, leave your house all unlocked with your kids inside, and go outside and start running amok. You would probably get killed, and while you might have taken down a lot of gang members, you still have your house wide open for people to invade and loot, harm your kids, etc. It might seem like a silly analogy, but it's an analogy nonetheless, and it conveys the point I'm trying to make.

Then by definition, no they are not free or democratic at this point. You can say they are a democracy all you want, but that requires a level of participation by the people and right now the people aren't participating. Have you ever considered that the reason they fight has a large part to do with the fact they have never had a taste of freedom? That perhaps they have no concept of the fact that life can be significantly better for all if they particpate more in their freedom then in warring? And that perhaps the reason we are trying to quell violence is to show them the opportunities that exist if they aren't preoccupied with simply trying to not be killed?

This was ALL known to be inevitable by the same people who planned and sold the war to begin with. The only problem is, they SOLD it as the OPPOSITE, knowing full well what the REAL consequences would be. I can post the videos of Cheney, and some of his Defense Policy Board members, on a couple different occasions speaking about the futility of doing such a thing. Nothing changed since then, but they decided to sell the war as something they themselves didn't even believe.

Why should our men and women in uniform have to pay for this deceit with their lives? And why should we as a nation, it's citizens, have to pay for it with our emotion, heartache, and dollars?

It was pointless to go in, and it's a mistake (to say the least) to stay.

We aren't forcing our 'will' on anyone. Our purpose there is keep people from killing each other and establish stability so they can form a working government. That isn't forcing our will on anyone.

We ARE forcing our will. We're MAKING them do what WE want them to do. That's forcing our will. They were a sovereign nation. We liberated them from Saddam's oppression. It's up to THEM now, to figure out the solution to their religious and political differences. And WE'RE killing exponentially more people than any of THEM are!

As of yet, we have not been asked to leave by the Iraqi government.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Iraqi_PM_Nouri_al-Maliki_says_U.S_Troops_can_leave_when_they_want

(snip) On the subject of the Iraqi military Al-Maliki expressed his belief that his military could conduct military operations without U.S forces and that "U.S Troops could leave anytime they wanted" saying if necessary Iraqi police and soldiers would replace the U.S troops on the front lines.

Now he didn't say "Get out", but the context of his statement is pretty interesting.

They HAVE though told Blackwater, who along with the other contractors virtually match US troop levels with their own mercenary army, to leave. So let's start there.

 

[CSM]

^ CSM, I believe you meant to put the Dog's name in your quote. That wasn't me. No harm, no foul. just clearing it up.

You are correct....thanks.