The Iraq war viewed by an average joe.

[Hello123]

Minus all of the propaganda, have you all asked yourselves what we are really getting from the war in Iraq? Stability? Don't see it. Cheap oil? Don't see it.

The only argument that I have witnessed of seeming credibility is one that states, "if we pull out now, Iraq will be in shambles." And that this would in-turn destabilize the middle east.

My thoughts. Until the governance in Iraq reflects the true will of the Iraqi citizenry, Iraq will be unstable. Artificial boundaries first made Iraq in 1920 by European powers. Saddam was only able to enforce cohesion of the differing Kurds, Sunni, and Shiites through force. We seem to only be able to enforce it through force. Does it ever strike anyone, that until natural boundaries occur through initiative and will of the indiginous, no peace will occur. How long should I send my kids inheritance over to that place? It seems like it will be for a long time to come.

We pulled out of Vietnam. Was it the right decision? I don't know, but I am darn glad we are not still there. Bad ideas have a way of burning themselves out. Communism did. I hope this war does as well.

 

[Bruxley]

Until the governance in Iraq reflects the true will of the Iraqi citizenry, Iraq will be unstable.

That is the very point. The thing Americans have a hard time getting their heads around is that they EXPECT injustice. We have lived in an environment of rights and an expectation of justice. We get outraged when we perceive a violation of our rights or a miscarriage in justice. It is a part of our national psyche.

People in that region EXPECT INJUSTICE. And that breeds resentment and eventually violence in any people. It's a condition that generation after generation has had proven to them. It's manipulated by their leaders to keep their heads down. The leaders point outside the country to keep that resentment and violence directed away from them.

Iraqis have long lived in a condition of that expectation of injustice. They have been severely treated should anyones head pop up. Now, for the first time in a very long time, there is starting an expectation that they will get to live how they choose. The Petraeus successes aren't borne from overwhelming US military domination, they are borne of the change in the perspective of the Iraqis. The promise made was that they could live how they want to live. Be Sunni, Shiite, etc. and the US wasn't going to force that to change. The only condition was that they also allowed their neighbors the same liberty to live how they wanted to live. Nobody will kill you for how you want to live, and no killing your neighbor for how they want to live. The US military would be their to protect that liberty should they be attacked. As that promise was consistently kept, the Iraqi people became emboldened to stand up for themselves.

This took like wildfire as liberty does among human beings. It came to the point that Iraqis drove out insurgents from their communities with the confidence that the US military was now perceived as an ally, not an adversary. The expectation of justice started as the promise was kept.

The local to central approach worked, and is STILL working very well. The change has been dramatic. The Shiites and Sunnis passed a Fatwa (Muslim 'law') against 'the rule of the gun' and made gaining power via violence a violation of sharia law. That speaks volumes about the effect of liberty of people accustomed to expecting injustice.

The promise needs to be kept. Breaking it will feed that expectation of injustice innate to that culture and result in a resentment that's violence can be pointed in any direction the next charismatic leader points it. KEEP the promise and those people will fight any threat to their new sense of justice.

The people of that region aren't incapable of being peaceful, rather they are expecting injustice and are positioning themselves to survive it. A new sense of expectation of justice will do more to reduce the threats from that region then carpet bombing ever could. That is has been manifesting in Iraq. The promise kept is what is at stake.

Look into what is causing the changes that are taking place in Iraq to come about. Petraeus took this approach vs. Abizaid's whack-a-mole approach. Petraeus is due soon for another report to Congress. Let's hope more attention gets paid this time. His approach has really been brilliant. If one really checks it out it's clear that the human desire for liberty is working in Iraq.

 

[SecDef]

Look into what is causing the changes that are taking place in Iraq to come about. Petraeus took this approach vs. Abizaid's whack-a-mole approach. Petraeus is due soon for another report to Congress. Let's hope more attention gets paid this time. His approach has really been brilliant. If one really checks it out it's clear that the human desire for liberty is working in Iraq.

Recent reports on Patraeus statements regarding Iraqi involvement (namely that they aren't living up to their side of the bargain) shows that we are in a less than brilliant situation as that is our only exit strategy.

We'll see what he says to congress though..

 

[Hello123]

Thanks to both. They were enjoyable post to read. Sometimes it seems we are not talking about the elephant in the room with politics. Such as end point with Iraq and a better energy policy for this country. It is nice to hear these ideas hashed out.

 

[Unregistered]

If you believe we are there to spread democracy and create a free nation, you've simply bought into Bush propoganda. If we cared about Democracy, we would also liberate Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, but I have not heard of invading those despotisms, because they are our allies.

It is not in our interest to promote democracy in a nation where most of the voters would not be pro-US. They will vote for radicals that hate us. This is the situation in Iran.

Ultimately what we will need in Iran is a pro-US, strong national leader who will rule the various groups with an iron fist, and quickly resort to extreme violence for those who attempt to question his authority. Either that or let the country divide up into seperate sectarian nations.

 

[Benonymous]

The penny drops.....

Ultimately what we will need in Iran is a pro-US, strong national leader who will rule the various groups with an iron fist, and quickly resort to extreme violence for those who attempt to question his authority. Either that or let the country divide up into seperate sectarian nations.

A strong-arm, pro-American leader eh?.............. one who can rule with an iron fist and deal with the various tribal/religious factions in Iraq. Hmmmmm I know a guy who could have applied for the job but he, unfortunately, is deceased. Oh and the pro-American bit was a bit of a hurdle with him towards the end.

 

[Unregistered]

Exactly. I was afraid my point had been lost, but I am glad to see at least one person got it. We supported Saddam initially, and he did what we needed: he provided for a stable government, and engaged in war with our other enemies in the region, the Iranians.

 

[copenhagen]

The only argument that I have witnessed of seeming credibility is one that states, "if we pull out now, Iraq will be in shambles." And that this would in-turn destabilize the middle east.

I could give a crap if Iraq is in shambles. Last time I checked we have our own shambles to take care of. I am sick and tired of this globalist propaganda that tells us somehow that we now have or ever had a responsibility to police the earth or even take part in foreign affairs.

We need to take care of our own at home. Council on Foreign Relations, UN, NATO, etc. etc. are anti-American sovereignty organizations pushing agendas that will ultimately destroy our Constitution and all our rights as Human Beings.

I encourage everyone to think for themselves.

 

[Super-Dave]

I agree the Iraq war is a waste of money and lives. Who cares why we went there just leave that 4th world **** hole.

Even though we pulled out of vietnam, look at it now. Mcdonalds every where. economic prosperity. That country is 1000 times better off now than it was in 1975.

I hate the whole, "democracy and freedom" lie. We fully support Pakistan's dictator and do what we can to discourage real democracy there.

 

[Garand Illusion]

We're not a global police force, because we have neither the troops, the treasure, nor the public will to invade and impose "regime change" on every nation we dont' like the government of. For the most part, we have to live with them.

The idea with Iraq was to plant a seed in the Middle East -- a stable, democratic government with secular leanings to set the stage for internal changes in other countries. Fight and change one country so we don't have to fight the rest (plus Iraq has huge reserves of oil, the actual quantity of which is not known but may rival Saudi Arabia).

And, I'm sure, to give us a base larger than Kuwait if we have to hammer one of the other countries in the area again. Iraq touches most of them.

We were already fighting Iraq on almost a daily basis as they shot at our planes, probably schemed to kill a former president, and incited even Billy Clinton to bomb the heck out of them from time to time. So Iraq was also the one country in the region we had sufficient reason to invade.

Given the last 5 years, I wish we'd just maintained the status quo and continued to protect no-fly zones and bomb them on occasion, but we're in it now.

And if we manage to win the real goal (a stable, fairly secular, democratic government in Iraq) it may be one of the most brilliant moves we've ever made. STable oil prices and a real victory against islamic terrorism may be the result (or not).

Only time and history will tell. Though at this point the betting is no better than 50/50 for a total win (which, given that it used to be about 10/90, is not that bad).

 

[Hello123]

I saw an interest program on the origins of this war. It looked like Cheney and Rumsfeld massaged evidence to fit a plan of going to war and not a war because of evidence. If this is true, it is truly tragic. It looks like george tenet was telling them the dots between saddam, wmd's, and terrorism can't be connected, because basically they are not connected. Saddam was a really bad guy that i am not sad to see go, but he was left in power to keep stability in the region. Colin Powell advised Bush to be prepared, that if he invaded iraq, we would have to deal with the aftermath for a long time to come. While our Pres is a nice guy, I don't think he was smart enough to see through Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, and Chalabi's constant harrassment.

 

[amprecon]

You wanna fight terrorist in Iraq or would you rather have them blowing **** up right here in our backyard? Regardless of whatever reason contrived to go in, I'd rather them be blowing **** up over there and drawing those heathens out into the open there and taking care of business than all that drama happening here.

Kinda like Iran-Contra? It's easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission. Imagine trying to explain doing the right thing to all those liberals, it would take decades to convince them if they were ever to be convinced. Meanwhile opportunity goes right out the door and we have to expend twice or more later on than if we had just taken care of it when the opportunity was ripe.

But then again, who am I?

 

[copenhagen]

But then again, who am I?

You're amprecon! who else could you possibly be?!

drawing those heathens

They think we're heathens too . . .

taking care of business than all that drama happening here

Heard it, believed it, lived it, lost good friends to it, and hey . . . war pretty much blows in my opinion. Been there, done that, wouldn't wish it on anyone. War is hell. Hell is war. But hey, if I get told to go back, I'll be there doing my duty. Gotta do the best to be a good upstanding moral American man. Just not sure about the political aspect so much anymore. But we have to take care of our brothers. Gotta take care of that man to the left and that man to the right. Got to.

 

[toybox99615]

BS flag BS Flag

I call the BS flag on the on going rhetoric over how fighting there keep them from being here.

The fight in Iraq is to stabilize Iraq. How is that related to keeping the BG from coming hear. Its a great line as long as there are no attacks or incidents. I can readily claim whatever we did up to 9/11 worked (again a few exceptions) since the attack did not happen before then. And that is also another meaningless statement.

During the second world war we did keep Japan from coming here (few exceptions) by keeping almost their entire force tied up. Whereas Al Qaeda appears to have members all over the world and most of them are not directly fighting with us they could easily attack the US. We only have a small part of their personnel involved in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. What is keeping the rest of them back. It sure isn't a fear of dying for their cause.

All these magical reports that trickle out to Americans claim there are millions of terrorist around the world. If they are so organized and so well trained and determined to destroy America why are we not actively sending troops to those locations?

For me its the same logic that we are still using against Cuba. As if there is going to be a fleet of 56 Edsel's floating into New York Harbor with Fidel at the helm attempting to take over Statin Island.

 

[amprecon]

They think we're heathens too . . .

Driving commercial planes full of civilians into buildings full of civilians to make a point? Cutting people's heads off with dull butcher knives and then airing it on the internet to make their point? Me and the people I know could never justify that. But I guess since myself and the people I know are guilty of being heathens in THEIR eyes we should just willfully lay our heads across the chopping block?
If condemning those acts makes me a heathen in their eyes, than so be it. I don't know which side your on, but if you agree with the enemy that Americans are heathens, then your on their side as far as myself and the people I know are concerned.

Our military is a terrorist magnet, that's why they're over there and not here. If any of those bogey's were left to their own devices on our streets, you'd trust them with your family? Unless your family were Muslim I'd guess they'd be in danger since their mission is to kill non-Muslims, myself and the people I know don't trust them.

You'd trust them to work at our utilities, to shop at your local Wal-Mart, to attend any sporting events? Ask the Israeli's if they would, they live it every day, that's why they walk their streets with automatic weapons, they don't trust them, but we should?

But then again, who am I?

Blow my house down and I'll vaporize yours.

 

[Unregistered]

Lots of internet dick-waving in this thread.

 

[Forwardassist]

Its good to see a growing understanding by people in this country that this war is a utter failure. Even the surge did not accomplish much, and what was accomplished is presently unraveling in Southern Iraq. I would even go so far to say the whole surge was a sham to fool Americans until after the election that the situation was under control. Which now seems it was only an illusion paid for by American money. We now have US trained Police and Military soldier joining insurgent groups in Basra. The Iraqi military is currently getting its butt kicked while trying to quell the uprising in Basra. Which means with all the effort in trying to train these people they are still hopelessly out classed by the militants. BTW these insurgent groups were bribed by the US to stand down to make it look they the surge was working. Well they did stand down and for a reward they got some training and supplies. Now they where called back to arms by their leaders. In truth the surge actually made the situation worse in the country. I believe by the end of the summer the violence will be worse than what we have seen before because large numbers of Iraqi soldiers/Police will join the insurgent groups. What ever their reason they will make it that much more difficult to regain control of the country. Which makes it almost a guarantee that a Democrat will win the White house and they will have a super majority in Congress.

 

[homefires]

It needed done! Just do it and put it behind us!

When we leave they will go back to the wretched people they are and continue killing each other! +1..............

Iran is going to raise it's ugly head soon enough! Step on there neck too!

 

[Bruxley]

I believe by the end of the summer the violence will be worse than what we have seen before because large numbers of Iraqi soldiers/Police will join the insurgent groups. What ever their reason they will make it that much more difficult to regain control of the country. Which makes it almost a guarantee that a Democrat will win the White house and they will have a super majority in Congress.

YEAH !!! Iraq still needs work and fights are starting again !!! WOOOOOoooHOOOooo
Another reminder that what is bad for America is GOOD for Democrats! Pretty sorry condition wouldn't you think? Unfortunatly it reveals again that Anti OIF rhetoric really IS motivated by polititcal ambition not by the fained moral objections.

The Basra conflict is a last stand by the last remninantes of Sadr's 'Mahdi Army'. The British left Basra before it was secured and Sadr has spent the time since then gaining strength as he ws no longer being held in check. The Iraqi President decided enough was enough and on his own went into Basra to clean out the last of these guys.

Surprisingly enough the Iraqi Army isn't ready yet, hence our continued presence traing them. So it did not go as Maliki hoped and here we come with British air support, to jump in.

Lessons learned this far, don't leave Iraq until it is secure. The worry of militant groups using that opportunity to gain strenth is now proven. And the second is that Iraq's Army relly isn't yet ready to keep these groups quelled.

 

[gc70]

BTW these insurgent groups were bribed by the US to stand down to make it look they the surge was working. Well they did stand down and for a reward they got some training and supplies. Now they where called back to arms by their leaders.

Try again; Google is your friend. The surge focused on al Qaeda's foreign fighters and local Sunni insurgents. Surprise - reaching out to the Sunnis worked. al Sadr is a Shiite and probably declared his Mahdi Army cease fire in the expectation that the American 'occupiers' would fail to make any progress with the Sunnis. Now he's back making trouble because the surge did work.