White House admits Iraq fuels extremism

[Damocles]

The NIE simply makes no judgement on american troops levels, or when and how they should redeploy or withdraw. Its not a policy paper. Its an analysis paper.

There are those of us who feel that the presence of 140,000 troops is making things worse, and that iraqi democracy is in the hands of iraqis. It won't be enforced at the point of a gun barrel. I don't think the amount of troops we have in iraq has anything to do effecting pluralism and democracy in Iraq, which is what the NIE said was the long-term cure for making the jihaddists "fail"

Look Cypress, using the analysis we can make judgements on the implied direction things are going. Pretending otherwise for what I state while agreeing with what others state on the same document is just pretense. There is a ton of that going on lately.

 

[Cypress]

ALl of this is true, but the point is that the White House has FUCKED UP and continues to fuck up by leaving the same people in charge. They cant seem to get a comprenhensive stragety together. Yes, I was against going in in the first place... Now I am against pulling out ASAP... but with these incompetants in charge,I am aginst staying in.

WE need to get some people in power who are not blinded by arrogance who can change the stragety, not stay married to it due to ego and move on!

true.

Bottom line is that it was a collasal fuck up, and the logical course of action is to hold those accountable who caused the fuck up.

 

[Damocles]

It states that if they are perceived to have a defeat
//

Yep it is all about perception with Bush not about reality

Bush didn't write this thing. It talks about what will happen by their analysis if we have a perceived victory in Iraq... It says that less will be willing to continue the fight if that happens. It says it directly, as I have quoted above. Now, either they were right or wrong, but taking one part and pounding it because it agrees with what you want to hear but refusing to listen to another part of the same report is disingenuous.

 

[Cypress]

Look Cypress, using the analysis we can make judgements on the implied direction things are going. Pretending otherwise for what I state while agreeing with what others state on the same document is just pretense. There is a ton of that going on lately.

Cool. You are welcome to present your argument for what constitutes "failure" for the jihaddists. Evidently, you think staying the Bush course is the perscription for initiating that failure for the jihaddists.

I have another view, about what and how ultimate success for us, and "failure" for the jihaddists is achieved.

The NIE made no judgement or recomendation either way. Your way, or my way. It doesn't recommend policy. That's what elected leaders do.

 

[Damocles]

Cool. You are welcome to present your argument for what constitutes "failure" for the jihaddists. Evidently, you think staying the Bush course is the perscription for initiating that failure for the jihaddists.

I have another view, about what and how ultimate success for us, and "failure" for the jihaddists is achieved.

The NIE made no judgement or recomendation either way. Your way, or my way. It doesn't recommend policy. That's what elected leaders do.

Evidently you didn't read my posts and are chasing a red herring here... I recommended a policy, I didn't say the report recommended a policy it provided analysis on what the jihadists would do with a perceived victory... I stated a policy on how we can get out quickly without giving them that perceived victory. That isn't "Stay the Course"... Your strawman is burning!

 

[uscitizen]

How do we get out ? the darned Iraq Army will not fight it's own citizens ?
They are in it for the easy money and training for after we leave, but for civil war type of fighting after we leave which is not the same thing as what we are wishing for.

 

[Cypress]

Evidently you didn't read my posts and are chasing a red herring here... I recommended a policy, I didn't say the report recommended a policy it provided analysis on what the jihadists would do with a perceived victory... I stated a policy on how we can get out quickly without giving them that perceived victory. That isn't "Stay the Course"... Your strawman is burning!

fair enough. my bad. i didn't read every post.

I was just refering to your first post, which seemed to be an exact duplicate of what Bush is saying:

"Once again it ignores the part that says that winning in Iraq would create a safer environment. It promotes staying in a place you don't want to stay.'

 

[Damocles]

How do we get out ? the darned Iraq Army will not fight it's own citizens ?
They are in it for the easy money and training for after we leave, but for civil war type of fighting after we leave which is not the same thing as what we are wishing for.

We do it by first providing actual security, thus giving a perceived "victory" then train many more, let's just double what they have... Then give a big ceremony and move out...

I agree on the need to leave quickly, just believe that we should do it wisely, not in disarray.

 

[Damocles]

fair enough. my bad. i didn't read every post.

I was just refering to your first post, which seemed to be an exact duplicate of what Bush is saying:

"Once again it ignores the part that says that winning in Iraq would create a safer environment. It promotes staying in a place you don't want to stay.'

That's why there are more posts, they elaborate on that position and explain what I believe to be a sound exit strategy.

 

[Cypress]

How do we get out ? the darned Iraq Army will not fight it's own citizens ?
They are in it for the easy money and training for after we leave, but for civil war type of fighting after we leave which is not the same thing as what we are wishing for.

the longer we stay, the worse it gets. That should have been the lesson for everyone.

The presence of american troops inflames the insurgency, and makes iraqi troops and police feel like collaborators. Give them a deadline, and let them fight for their own country. Every deadline (constitution, voting) we've given them in the past, they have impressively met.

 

[Damocles]

the longer we stay, the worse it gets. That should have been the lesson for everyone.

The presence of american troops inflames the insurgency, and makes iraqi troops and police feel like collaborators. Give them a deadline, and let them fight for their own country. Every deadline (constitution, voting) we've given them in the past, they have impressively met.

This too is sound strategy. However I do believe that the Iraqis deserve to have security provided by the occupying nation in the interim. Deadlines are not just for the US, but also for the Iraqis, they need to know they have a true stake in their future.

 

[Care4all]

yes Damo, in a JUST WAR the occupiers IMMEDIATELY after major battle are required to secure the country's borders and secure the lives of the occupied country's citizens.

AND to assure that the lives of the citizens of the country being occupied are better and safer than what their lives were like IMMEDIATELY before the occupier's attack.

Did we do that for the people of Iraq? Did we meet these REQUIREMENTS of Just War?

The honest answer is no.

The administration's Iraq war Policies HAVE FAILED, totally in providing the above....

The Bush/Cheney policies MUST CHANGE....imo. And if they do not DOUBLE their forces there and come up with a plan to win....AND WHAT WINNING IS NOW, I really don't know....., then we should LEAVE, NOW.....imo.

No more prolonging this with "Staying the course"....many DEATHS are at the HANDS of the administration because of their POLICY of Staying the Course....so THEY are most certainly RESPONSIBLE for the most recent deaths of the Iraqi people because they did not have a plan and did not take any of the proper actions to secure them...

And you never answered me on WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN if we left?

Why would alqaEDA stay there to fight the shiites? Please answer....what is Alqaeda's goal in Iraq and who are they fighting?

And you did not answer if you thought that IRAN would come to the aid of the shiite we are aiding now to fight alqaeda?

 

[Damocles]

yes Damo, in a JUST WAR the occupiers IMMEDIATELY after major battle are required to secure the country's borders and secure the lives of the occupied country's citizens.

AND to assure that the lives of the citizens of the country being occupied are better and safer than what their lives were like IMMEDIATELY before the occupier's attack.

Did we do that for the people of Iraq? Did we meet these REQUIREMENTS of Just War?

The honest answer is no.

The administration's Iraq war Policies HAVE FAILED, totally in providing the above....

The Bush/Cheney policies MUST CHANGE....imo. And if they do not DOUBLE their forces there and come up with a plan to win....AND WHAT WINNING IS NOW, I really don't know....., then we should LEAVE, NOW.....imo.

No more prolonging this with "Staying the course"....many DEATHS are at the HANDS of the administration because of their POLICY of Staying the Course....so THEY are most certainly RESPONSIBLE for the most recent deaths of the Iraqi people because they did not have a plan and did not take any of the proper actions to secure them...

And you never answered me on WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN if we left?

Why would alqaEDA stay there to fight the shiites? Please answer....what is Alqaeda's goal in Iraq and who are they fighting?

And you did not answer if you thought that IRAN would come to the aid of the shiite we are aiding now to fight alqaeda?

You must be deliberately not reading what I write so you can pretend that I stated stuff I have not.

No, I don't believe that they will. I believe that the jihadists will leave. I thought I made that clear.

And you once again pretend that I stated we should "Stay the Course!" that is total rubbish and shows that partisan blinders have actually stuffed your ears so you cannot "hear" what I have stated. I gave an exit strategy, not a "Stay the Course"...

And I did answer the "What would happen if we left..." question with the fact that, as the analysis report states, the jihadists would leave Iraq and be heartened with victory and would bring the war to us, creating greater danger to the US if we leave without doing it wisely.

I believe, I'll state it again as you clearly haven't actually read any of my previous posts other than some specific line that you believe I keep repeating...

We have more in common than we have in disagreement here, I believe we should get out quickly, I believe we should ensure security for the Iraqis...

 

[Cypress]

yes Damo, in a JUST WAR the occupiers IMMEDIATELY after major battle are required to secure the country's borders and secure the lives of the occupied country's citizens.

AND to assure that the lives of the citizens of the country being occupied are better and safer than what their lives were like IMMEDIATELY before the occupier's attack.

Did we do that for the people of Iraq? Did we meet these REQUIREMENTS of Just War?

The honest answer is no.

The administration's Iraq war Policies HAVE FAILED, totally in providing the above....

The Bush/Cheney policies MUST CHANGE....imo. And if they do not DOUBLE their forces there and come up with a plan to win....AND WHAT WINNING IS NOW, I really don't know....., then we should LEAVE, NOW.....imo.

No more prolonging this with "Staying the course"....many DEATHS are at the HANDS of the administration because of their POLICY of Staying the Course....so THEY are most certainly RESPONSIBLE for the most recent deaths of the Iraqi people because they did not have a plan and did not take any of the proper actions to secure them...

And you never answered me on WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN if we left?

Why would alqaEDA stay there to fight the shiites? Please answer....what is Alqaeda's goal in Iraq and who are they fighting?

And you did not answer if you thought that IRAN would come to the aid of the shiite we are aiding now to fight alqaeda?

When and if we leave, the sunni tribal militas and the shia militias will probably turn their guns onto the foreign arab fighters. Those foreign fighters have probably killed more iraqis than we have. And Iraqi tribes have a long history of holding grudges.

And there have already been many reports of indigenous sunni insurgents already fighting the foreign fighers.

 

[maineman]

the "good news" -if you can call it that - in the NIE is all couched in phrasology that uses words like "IF" and "COULD" and "MAY". the bad news is pretty much statements of fact and not hopeful conjecture.

 

[Damocles]

When and if we leave, the sunni tribal militas and the shia militias will probably turn their guns onto the foreign arab fighters. Those foreign fighters have probably killed more iraqis than we have. And Iraqi tribes have a long history of holding grudges.

And there have already been many reports of indigenous sunni insurgents already fighting the foreign fighers.

This, I believe, also shows that Iraq and Iran have a long way to come before they become allies just becuase of religion. Many of those foreign fighters are from Iran, or supplied by them.

 

[Cypress]

This, I believe, also shows that Iraq and Iran have a long way to come before they become allies just becuase of religion. Many of those foreign fighters are from Iran, or supplied by them.

I've seen no evidence to support that assertion:

"interviews with intelligence officials and earlier studies suggested that the largest contingents (of foreign figheters) are Algerians (20 percent), Syrians (18 percent), Yemenis (17 percent), Sudanese (15 percent) and Egyptians (13 percent)."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519.html


Its true, I've never thought foreign fighters are that big of a problem in iraq - though they probably are responsible for some of the more spectacular bombings.

The problem is, that bush has radicalized Iraqis now. And possibly inspired many of them to become jihaddists. That was never the case before bush invaded. I don't believe there's ever been a terrorist attack on american interests that involved an iraqi citizen for the 30 years prior to bush's war.

 

[uscitizen]

We do it by first providing actual security, thus giving a perceived "victory" then train many more, let's just double what they have... Then give a big ceremony and move out...

I agree on the need to leave quickly, just believe that we should do it wisely, not in disarray.

I am not sure that is possible, well at least for the next 20 years or so anyway.
Your wish is mine too, but I think it is just a wish. If we stay another 5 years or one I am not convinced it will really make any difference in what happens after we are gone.

 

[Damocles]

I am not sure that is possible, well at least for the next 20 years or so anyway.
Your wish is mine too, but I think it is just a wish. If we stay another 5 years or one I am not convinced it will really make any difference in what happens after we are gone.

Oh, I don't believe it needs to be 5 years. The main thing is to get Iraqis to take responsibility for their own nation as quickly as possible. The best way to do that is providing immediate security. It would be unpopular, but the best strategy IMHO is to get more people in, give them a deadline for their takeover for their own security, and follow it. Each deadline the Iraqis actually had to do they have done astoundingly well.

 

[Jarod]

CLearly we need to slowly back out.

Apologize to the international community and ask the UN to put a peace keeping force in place to fix our terrable mistake.

Then maybe some good will come of the invasion. In 40 years after the UN has kept peace for a generation, Iraq may become an emerging star of a democracy we all want it to become!