New RAND study says what many of us have been saying all along

[maineman]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/11/rand.insurgencies/index.html

The Rand Corp. report characterizes "U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world" as "at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, and, on the whole, infeasible."

I wonder if the hard core partisan republicans will denigrate the RAND Corporation as being surrender monkeys?

 

[mattskramer]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/11/rand.insurgencies/index.html

The Rand Corp. report characterizes "U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world" as "at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, and, on the whole, infeasible."

I wonder if the hard core partisan republicans will denigrate the RAND Corporation as being surrender monkeys?

I think that they will want to know the political leaning of the people who run RAND. Then they will demand to know what charities they support. Has anyone there given money to a Democrat? Then they will try to link the organization with anti-war groups and claim bias. If that doesn’t work, they will go searching for other items that give a different assessment (and perhaps say that there is no doubt that the war was warranted) LOL.

 

[jillian]

I think that they will want to know the political leaning of the people who run RAND. Then they will demand to know what charities they support. Has anyone there given money to a Democrat? Then they will try to link the organization with anti-war groups and claim bias. If that doesn’t work, they will go searching for other items that give a different assessment (and perhaps say that there is no doubt that the war was warranted) LOL.

Heh... and then they'll say it was funded by George Soros and that its a plot by Michael Moore and Sean Penn.

 

[Skull Pilot]

while i hate to pigeon-hole myself as a republican, i have to say that not all people who tend to vote republican are or ever have been for invading iraq.

it was a bonehead move that we will allbe paying for for a long long time to come

 

[jillian]

while i hate to pigeon-hole myself as a republican, i have to say that not all people who tend to vote republican are or ever have been for invading iraq.

it was a bonehead move that we will allbe paying for for a long long time to come

Can't argue with you on that. Some people still turn themselves inside out, contorting their logic, to continue to try and justify it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Can't argue with you on that. Some people still turn themselves inside out, contorting their logic, to continue to try and justify it.

Wrong as usual. What most of us do is remind you that once we crossed into Iraq the REASONS for invading became moot, pointless , irrelevant. We are there and need to finish what we started, right or wrong to have started it to begin with.

The cold heartless sorts would be those that demand we abandon Iraqis to death and enslavement because you do not like our President. That we cut and run because over 5 years 4000 troops have died and that somehow that is just horrible. Context is everything. The deaths in Iraq are equal to and in some cases less then those suffered in a comparable period in TRAINING.

Like it or not we are committed and WE made Iraq a basket case after the invasion, we can not leave until it has a military capable of defending the country inside and out. AND we should stay in permanent bases if the Iraqi Government wants us too. IT is in our best National Interest.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Wrong as usual. What most of us do is remind you that once we crossed into Iraq the REASONS for invading became moot, pointless , irrelevant. We are there and need to finish what we started, right or wrong to have started it to begin with.

The cold heartless sorts would be those that demand we abandon Iraqis to death and enslavement because you do not like our President. That we cut and run because over 5 years 4000 troops have died and that somehow that is just horrible. Context is everything. The deaths in Iraq are equal to and in some cases less then those suffered in a comparable period in TRAINING.

Like it or not we are committed and WE made Iraq a basket case after the invasion, we can not leave until it has a military capable of defending the country inside and out. AND we should stay in permanent bases if the Iraqi Government wants us too. IT is in our best National Interest.

Knowing what we know now, and given the cost in blood and treasure, did we make a mistake in invading Iraq? Yes or no? It's really a very simple question that everyone has an opinion on.

 

[Bern80]

Knowing what we know now, and given the cost in blood and treasure, did we make a mistake in invading Iraq? Yes or no? It's really a very simple question that everyone has an opinion on.

Knowing what we know now? Of course it seems like a bad decision. You can't justifiably hold people accountable for their actions based on what you now know in hindsight, however. I am also a righty who believes that the U.S. being in Iraq simply is no longer worth it.

Several reason have been given as to why we should stay. It's in our best interests and we are liberating a country. The problem is I'm not sure the U.S. can morally claim both of those things at the same time. We may be doing what we think is in our best interest (where the war on terror is concerned it probably isn't the best option) and at the same time we're trying to couch that by saying we're liberating a country. We can't claim a lot of moral high ground when we only liberate those countries that our in our best interests to do so.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Knowing what we know now? Of course it seems like a bad decision. You can't justifiably hold people accountable for their actions based on what you now know in hindsight, however. I am also a righty who believes that the U.S. being in Iraq simply is no longer worth it.

Several reason have been given as to why we should stay. It's in our best interests and we are liberating a country. The problem is I'm not sure the U.S. can morally claim both of those things at the same time. We may be doing what we think is in our best interest (where the war on terror is concerned it probably isn't the best option) and at the same time we're trying to couch that by saying we're liberating a country. We can't claim a lot of moral high ground when we only liberate those countries that our in our best interests to do so.

thank you, it's very honest of you to admit that, in hindsight, the invading iraq was a huge and tragic mistake. I appreciate that honesty.

It's why I'm willing to forgive politicians like Chuck Hagel or John Edwards. Even though they voted for the war, they at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it was a mistake to invade given hindsight.

 

[Bern80]

thank you, it's very honest of you to admit that, in hindsight, the invading iraq was a huge and tragic mistake. I appreciate that honesty.

It's why I'm willing to forgive politicians like Chuck Hagel or John Edwards. Even though they voted for the war, they at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it was a mistake to invade given hindsight.

Where I keep getting hung up is also a moral issue. The problem is if we we're to leave now, while we have gotten our troops out of harms way, we have a pretty good idea what is going to happen in Iraq. We know things would probably get considerably worse for a lot of Iraqis. Again if you want to claim morality on the issue, then that needs to be pretty heavily weighed. Otherwise you (not you personally) need to have the 'cojones' to say what you're really after. As best and honestly as I can sum up that would be that the singular priority is to remove our armed forces from what you (again, not your personally) believe is a non-imperitive situation and the repurcussions to those we are leaving is secondary.

 

[Shogun]

Three-step solution to solve the iraq quagmire:

1. build new modern cities out of secured settlements for Iraqis who want to step into the 21st century. Remove our troops from hostile zones and concentrate protecting modern city-states modeled after places like sparta. Im guessing it is tougher to plant an IED in a secured location than it is in a place like baghdad.

2. Grow democracy, a mix of capitolistic socialism, and education. Focus on the younger generation and make sure that their children are fed, clothed, and have the chance to see themselves through the eyes of the world rather than become violent and lashing out at the perceived threat of the west.

3. Create a market hooked on toilet paper and cable television and the internet. Build a peace offering that is a park facing mecca. Refocus on defending and supplying these location until a solid iraqi government can stock a viable military to patrol their own. Make sure that iraqis know that these locations are THERES and, through peacefully steeping into the modern age, they are working towards OWNING these modern locations.



A military presence never seems to change the hearts and minds of people. Our own history teaches us that we felt the same way. We need a way to filter those who are on board from those who are not on board and work on showing the rest what can be achieved out of this the carcass of this giant clusterfuck.

 

[jillian]

Where I keep getting hung up is also a moral issue. The problem is if we we're to leave now, while we have gotten our troops out of harms way, we have a pretty good idea what is going to happen in Iraq. We know things would probably get considerably worse for a lot of Iraqis. Again if you want to claim morality on the issue, then that needs to be pretty heavily weighed. Otherwise you (not you personally) need to have the 'cojones' to say what you're really after. As best and honestly as I can sum up that would be that the singular priority is to remove our armed forces from what you (again, not your personally) believe is a non-imperitive situation and the repurcussions to those we are leaving is secondary.

Funny... no one cared about what would happen to the Iraqis when we went into Baghdad. Suddenly, it's a humanitarian mission? If we stay one year, or 10 years, what's the difference in result? None. That being the case, we should start removing our troops.

Also, the Iraqis want us out. Even if I thought we should stay, I'd say they get to make that call.

 

[Bern80]

Funny... no one cared about what would happen to the Iraqis when we went into Baghdad. Suddenly, it's a humanitarian mission? If we stay one year, or 10 years, what's the difference in result? None. That being the case, we should start removing our troops.

You're really not getting this whole saying things you can't back up thing are you? No one cared what would happen to the Iraqis? It was stated before we even got there that are mission was two fold. Find WMDs and liberate the country. I'm not saying it is or isn't a humanitarian mission. I'm saying it was a justification used. You also don't know that staying there would not make a difference. What evidence to have for that? ESP perhaps? Maybe it would maybe it wouldn't

Also, the Iraqis want us out. Even if I thought we should stay, I'd say they get to make that call.

Yes I'm sure al Sadr wants us out very badly. Similar to the U.S. opinions will vary depending on who you talk to.

 

[maineman]

You're really not getting this whole saying things you can't back up thing are you? No one cared what would happen to the Iraqis? It was stated before we even got there that are mission was two fold. Find WMDs and liberate the country. I'm not saying it is or isn't a humanitarian mission. I'm saying it was a justification used. You also don't know that staying there would not make a difference. What evidence to have for that? ESP perhaps? Maybe it would maybe it wouldn't



Yes I'm sure al Sadr wants us out very badly. Similar to the U.S. opinions will vary depending on who you talk to.

nothing expresses the depth of our humanitarian spirit more than a few days of shock and awe, I always say.

 

[CSM]

nothing expresses the depth of our humanitarian spirit more than a few days of shock and awe, I always say.

You "always" say that? Please define "always"...once an hour, daily, weekly or what. Semantics is EVERYTHING, donchya know

 

[Bern80]

nothing expresses the depth of our humanitarian spirit more than a few days of shock and awe, I always say.

I'm generally a pretty bright guy, but I'm afraid you went right over my head with that one. In other words, what are you talking about?

 

[maineman]

You "always" say that? Please define "always"...once an hour, daily, weekly or what. Semantics is EVERYTHING, donchya know

lol

I guess I only always say it when someone tries to make the case that our humanitarian mission was anything other than bullshit windowdressing.

I think I always do say it then however.... or nearly always.

If we really cared deeply about the lives of ordinary Iraqis, spending three solid days raining down tons of deadly explosive armaments on Iraq's most densely populated civilian population center was an "odd" way of showing it.

Including the infamous cruise missile strike on the restaurant in Northern Baghdad because we thought Saddam might be dining there. Aw shucks. He wasn't, of course. Killed everyone ELSE in the restaurant...killed everyone in the adjacent apartment building...but what the fuck... we really CARED about those Iraqis we smoked. Honest!

 

[Bern80]

lol

I guess I only always say it when someone tries to make the case that our humanitarian mission was anything other than bullshit windowdressing.

I think I always do say it then however.... or nearly always.

If we really cared deeply about the lives of ordinary Iraqis, spending three solid days raining down tons of deadly explosive armaments on Iraq's most densely populated civilian population center was an "odd" way of showing it.

Including the infamous cruise missile strike on the restaurant in Northern Baghdad because we thought Saddam might be dining there. Aw shucks. He wasn't, of course. Killed everyone ELSE in the restaurant...killed everyone in the adjacent apartment building...but what the fuck... we really CARED about those Iraqis we smoked. Honest!

You're a vet right? Was it your experience that our military just drops bombs willy nilly and whoever they hit, they hit?

 

[maineman]

You're a vet right? Was it your experience that our military just drops bombs willy nilly and whoever they hit, they hit?

That was definitely my understanding of carpet bombing in WWII, it was definitely my understanding of the firebombing of Dresden, it was definitely my understanding about Hiroshima and Nagasaki...it was definitely my understanding of call for fire missions in Vietnam where entire villages were taken out because there were VC inside some of the structures returning fire... etc. etc.

and I ask you: do you really believe that air dropped ordinance is so accurate that you can run 1700 bombing sorties on the city of Baghdad in three days and not necessarily take out a shitload of civilians?

we HAD to kill 'em to save 'em!!

 

[Warner]

Wrong as usual. What most of us do is remind you that once we crossed into Iraq the REASONS for invading became moot, pointless , irrelevant. We are there and need to finish what we started, right or wrong to have started it to begin with.

"Come back here, I'll bite your kneecaps off!" - The Black Knight