Shots Across The Bow

Only that some lives might be spared if they realize we are leaving and decide to drop off IED attacks.

Once we're gone though, the civil war will begin, and afterwards Iran will try to take over who ever is left, and we'll be back involved, in some way, all over again.

In my case, the only thing they have accomplished is to ensure that even if the Democrats manage to dredge up a decent presidential candidate, I can't entrust my vote to them.

1/ Perhaps once the occupiers who have destroyed the country have left the two million exiles will return to take back their country.
2. They will have to look inward and answer for the problems rather than blame the US.
3. We will better be able to guard our borders and use the money to re-build America.

George evidentally thinks US "occupiers" have been the ones blowing up Iraqi civilians, and that all these exiles ran away to get away from us, rather than violence (silly point #1).

If the American anti-war left and the vast majority of the "civilized world" will always blame the US for every problem under the sun, why shouldn't disgruntled Iraqis (silly point #2).

And what is so broken about America that needs that much rebuilding -- although I do agree about guarding our borders (not so silly point #3).

George, I have a few questions:
1) Which set of occupiers are you asking about, the ones who are building schools and hospitals, who have guarded 3 of the freest elections in the history of the region, and who overthrew a murderoust tyrant or the "foreign fighters" who are killing Muslims by exploding IED's laced with Chlorine?
2)"They" have been blaming the West since their culture failed to advance beyond the middle ages, what makes you think they'll stop now?
3)So, you support a vigorous immigration reform package which will stop illegal immigrants at the border and return those currently and illegally residing in America. Is that correct?

Just curious.

George, just for the record - there will be no tears when you get what you want but don't like the result of how we actually "operationalize" point number 3.

Ok. You will not like this. But what do you think the American publilc now wants? What do most Iraqis tell us they want? Who is killing whom? Sunnis are killing Shia. Yes. There are Al Qaeda there but today we read that the Sunnis want them out too.

Now: if we leave what will happen? What is happening right now? Why are we there? Democracy? civil war? oil? Assume we do not set a ullout date. The tell me now what will determine when we should leave? How will we know when to leave?
You say we have the Democrats calling for pullout because of politics but then we are there because of politics.

Bush had his way. It has not worked out. We are seeing American lives lost daily. For WHAT? We depleted forces in Afghanistan and now Taliban coming back. Opium growing is there now at an all-time high (no pun meant)! and that too is killing Americans at home. Why don't we stamp out the opium growth?

I see no useful purpose served by being in Iraq. We have now been there longer than we fought in WWII. And what have we to show for it?
cut your loses--one useful bumper sticker. Another: losing the game, change the rules

"1/ Perhaps once the occupiers who have destroyed the country have left the two million exiles will return to take back their country.
2. They will have to look inward and answer for the problems rather than blame the US."

The first two items are self-contradictory in the extreme.

Why would Iraqis "have to look inward and answer for the problems rather than blame the US" if it is US "occupiers" who "destroyed their country"?
If you were right that US are "occupiers" and "destroyers" than Iraqis would be right "to blame US" for everything that happened to them, no?

"3. We will better be able to guard our borders and use the money to re-build America."

This might be actually logical. If we do run away from Iraq now, we'd need all the resources to guard our borders and re-build (again and again) after inevitable future terrorist acts.

So, david still, since they're growing opium again, does that mean you consider the Afghanistan invasion a mistake? How long will we need to occupy _that_ country?

>We have now been there longer than we fought in WWII.

World War II did not begin with us, dave. And we stayed there loooong after the bombs stopped falling. What do you think would have happened if we'd gone home the day after the surrender?

>Why don't we stamp out the opium growth?

Does this mean you also support a full-fledged invasion of Columbia to bomb their cocaine fields? Cool!

re: WWII went on longer.

Should we have ended the Iraq war the WWII way? In rough numbers, 80 million civilians died in WWII. I imagine if we killed that many Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Yemeni, Jordanians (you begin to have to reach far afield to get to 80 million...), etc, it's likely we'd have finished this war up already.

PS

Having a Republican in the White House has been such a boon for America!

The fifth-column activities of the left in the WoT are well-documented.

Here are some very effective and handy techniques for debating Iraq with fashion sheep. This is great for work or social gatherings, where you want to win rather than stalemate into an "is not/is soo" contest.

Note that low-IQ leftists like Dave never compare WWII CASUALTIES to Iraq casualties. They only compare duration. Why? Because it allows them to misrepresent Iraq, which is their goal. Facts are never their goal.

Thanks for the replies: didn't mean to suggest that only our troops are destroying the country, but that our occupation has enabled the destruction by some estimates of over 600,000. Indeed our war was sucessful, but the occupation a failure to quote Chalabi, President Bush's buddy- remember him? Frankly after the capture of Saddam what was the point of our continued occupation-- after all this is a country in the Middle East and not Mexico.

Thanks for the replies: didn't mean to suggest that only our troops are destroying the country, but that our occupation has enabled the destruction by some estimates of over 600,000. Indeed our war was sucessful, but the occupation a failure to quote Chalabi, President Bush's buddy- remember him? Frankly after the capture of Saddam what was the point of our continued occupation-- after all this is a country in the Middle East and not ajoining our border.

Fatmouse: World War II did not begin with us, dave.

I don't know why you even bother. People like Dave would have complained that Germany never attacked us. I remember the weaseling:

"If we don't offend Hitler, he will leave us alone" - Europe 1938

Maybe the Bush Administration is using the surrender lobby to convince the Iraq government to continue to support the Petraeus initiative by arguing to the Iraqis that a substantial portion of the USA wants out, and that the Iraqis should use our help now while there is still time to destroy al-Qaeda in Iraq and "persuade" the various militant groups to play ball with a sustainable government. Wishful thinking? Maybe, but while some may see a pile of excrement, I prefer to look for the wonderful sleek horse that must be nearby.

by some estimates of over 600,000

Did you pull that bogus stat from the discredited Lancet study? Or by some say did you mean Micheal Moore?

These are my honest responses to the questions posed:

Do you think it is likely that knowing that American troops will be pulling out of Iraq regardless of the conditions on the ground will embolden and encourage the insurgents?

No. This constant talk about "emboldening" the insurgents is always left conveniently vague, and there's no empirical way to determine whether a significant number of insurgents will be "encouraged" by a withdrawal deadline, so this is all just speculation.

Do you think it is likely that given this information, the insurgents will work harder to overthrow the Iraqi government in favor a more militant and anti Western one?

Do you suppose that they're only giving 50% effort right now, which they will step up to 75% or 100% as soon as they get the news? We are told that these are Islamist fanatics, so presumably they are working as hard as they can toward this goal and will continue to do so until they either achieve it or they all die.

Do you think it is possible that Iran will seize upon this instability to draw Iraq into its sphere of influence as another Lebanon?

This is an odd analogy, because Lebanon apart from Hezbollah is hardly under Iran's 'sphere of influence.' But the answer is that the very Iraqi government that the US is supposedly fighting to support is itself cozying up to Iran. So the stronger the Iraqi government is, the more influence the Shiites have in Iraq, and the closer Iraq is going to be in Iran.

Do you think a weak Iraq will contribute to stability in the Middle East, or will it be a destabilizing factor?

Again, it's hard to evaluate vague claims like "stability," but I'd say that the US presence in Iraq is right now the greatest obstacle to stability simply unless we concede that the US will remain there forever. Otherwise, everyone is waiting to see what will happen when the US pulls out, jockeying for power, etc. The continued occupation is simply delaying the final resolution of all of this.

Having answered the above questions honestly, can you think of anything good coming from establishing a troop withdrawal deadline? Anything at all?

Of course. Come on - surely even someone who supports the occupation can think of something good that will come of its end. My candidates: the will of the American and Iraqi people is honored. We save billions of dollars.

David,
"What do most Iraqis tell us they want?"
That they want us to stay until security improves.

What will the insurgents do? I would think that the insurgents would lay relatively low for the next year if they think that we are going to leave in 2008.

Had we done more damage/inflicted more casualties during the invasion phase, there probably would have been fewer Iraqi and U.S./Allied casualties overall, and a quicker transition.

The same applies to dealing with the Shia groups.

For Jason:
I don't doubt that your responses are genuine, so please believe me that mine to yours are also genuine. And also supported by my three tours in Iraq.

1. How you measure "emboldened?" Since we are dealing with human beings, there is no way to be 100% sure how they will react... but that does not mean that all estimates and 'speculation' are equal. Let me turn this around for you... indulge me a moment: if YOU were getting ready to go out on patrol in Ramadi, do you think the odds of you getting injured would be increased or decreased if the guys doing the injuring knew that if they could just inflict enough reportable casualties, the U.S. would pull out? Do I KNOW they would be emboldened bya timetable? No, but I'd certainly bet that way. Since casualties have driven our Congress to this measure, there is no reason for them to believe that more casualties won't hurry the process or make it more likely. How can the congressmen that have put forward this legislation say "well, when we'd only lost 3,000 I thought we should cut and run, but now that we've lost 4,000 I think we should stay and fight!!" I don't see it. Do you?

2. Aren't they going at it full press right now? Unless we assume infinite resources, then every campaign will ebb and flow as opportunities arise and logistics become available (and vice versa). Bad guys do not operate all-out all the time, so in short answer to your question, no, they are not at 100% right now. If an end is in sight, THEN we could expect them to not hold anything back for a rainy day... and that end can either be the U.S. getting on planes and leaving, or the international support drying up as it realizes supporting AQIZ is good money after bad.

3. Isn't the Shi'a government pro-Iran anyway? If you believe that there is no sense of Iraqi nationalism or national identity, then your position makes a little bit of sense. That Sunnis would emphasize the Iranian influence also makes sense if you realize that the Sunni miss running things.

4. Isn't the U.S. presence causing all the hubbub? If by 'stability' you mean 'everybody that is interested in self-determination is dead or terrified into non-action' then yes, our leaving would bring more stability. As this is not the normal working definition, then no. There are few Iraqis I've talked to, and I've talked to a lot, mostly Sunni, but some Shia, that are not appreciative of Saddam being gone, looking forward to less killing, and happier with the current 'instability' than the current options (Saddam or a Saddam-like dictator or the the true chaos-hell following an early U.S. pull-out).

4. Wouldn't we save some money? This requires such a low level of humanity that it hardly bears addressing. Perhaps you were being flippant.

Sorry if I mischaracterized your questions/responses...

George: You'll have to do better than quote the flawed Lancet number of 600K to convince me we are "destroying" Iraq. Even the methodology of the much more respected (but still biased) Iraq Body Count tried to place the blood of children ruthlessly murdered by car bombs on our hands, something I cannot agree with. In fact, when AQI beheads a contractor working for the US all these body counters act as if it's our fault.

Jason: A few comments on your general assertions:
1. By your own logic you would have to concede that all the claims that we are producing more terrorists by being in Iraq as unprovable and therefore dismissable.
2. The provisions in the house bill mandates not only a final pull-out date but also a six-month gate, at which if the conditions on the ground don't meet specific criteria withdrawal would be required earlier. This seem to provide a goal specific reason for the terrorists and insurgents to "blow their wad" and force us out earlier rather than conserve and marshal their limited resources.
3. You seem to believe that perpetual instability in Iraq is a given. I have a different opinion, but leaving that aside I also can't see a scenario in which perpetual instability in Iraq does not adversely affect our goals in the GWOT. As such, I say that perpetual instability in Iraq is unacceptable, even if it requires a longer US presence.
4. As others have noted, the idea that Iraqis on a whole are begging us to stay has been disproved by survey after survey I fail to see how it can continue to be used as a point in meaningful argument.

what if you "retreaters" are wrong, and Iraq becomes a Rwanda in the Sand? Will YOU be able to admit you were wrong? Or will you just knot yourself in excuses and denial like W?

I appreciate the honest efforts of some here to explain why they think evacuating Iraq would be a good thing, but I can't help wondering how any sentient being can question the basic logic behind the original questions. Imagine:
Tomorrow morning Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and Obama hold a joint press conference in which they decry the chemical warfare being engaged in by terrorists in Iraq. They then condemn in no uncertain terms the targeting and use of children in terror attacks, and rip into the Iraqi destabilizers for killing - slaughtering - innocents. Then they praise the courageous Iraqis who vote, join the police, etc - and PROMISE to stick around to defend these people and guarantee their security.
What would the impact be? Wow - think about it. Iraqis would know that the US was serious - not just George Bush. They would know that their efforts would pay off - that they won't be stranded. (To those who say the Iraqis need to take responsibility, I ask, Why? They keep hearing from prominent liberals in this country that we'll leave them hanging. (And schmucks like Hagel.)They've been hearing this for, oh, four years now. How does this encourage their taking responsibility???)
Now imagine that this had happened four years ago. Isn't it conceivable that the war would be over by now? That terrorists and other insurgents would have given up, for lack of encouragement from the likes of Durbin and Kennedy and Gordon Smith? And since so many liberals love the bogus WW2 comparison, think about this. If Allied politicians were constantly threatening to quit fighting before the war ended - before victory - might the Japanese and Germans have fought differently, and might some of their diehards have continued fighting long after the summer of 1945? Hell, why not! And something else to ponder. How many tens of thousands of Filipinos died in the fighting in Manila? Today's left would condemn American agression for the wanton murders committed by the Japanese soldiers there. And how many Jews and other prisoners died in the last months of the war, their deaths fast forwarded due to Allied advances. Again, today's lefties would find it reasonable to blame Allied policies for such killings.
I know it sounds ridiculous, but isn't it true? Our liberals prefer defeat in Iraq to a victory for George Bush. That is appalling, but obviously true. They twist their logic to defend an indefensible position. We KNOW (from captured docs and computers) that al Qaeda views victory in Iraq as essential, and we KNOW that they are counting on their barbarism to intimidate us. So why the hell do liberals acquiesce?
Furthermore, as our enemies become more desperate they engage in more barbaric behavior. Two thoughts - we can't surrender to such behavior, for obvious reasons. (But since so many of the war's opponents are oblivious to the obvious, let's spell it out. Surrender to barbarism breeds more barbarism. There.) And thought two - such behavior on the part of the bad guys is counterproductive. It pisses off Iraqis. That is good for us. It's terrible PR to blow off chlorine bombs in Fallujah. Now, blow those same bombs off in London or DC and, voila!, folk hero status in Riyadh and Berkeley. But do it in Fallujah and the only happy folks are left-wingers in the West who can chalk up more dead civilians for their boots and crosses protests, and liberal Western politicians who can bemoan the dead and implicitly blame Bush for their murders. Iraqis, on the other hand, aren't so keen on it.
The left has spun so many lies in regards to the war on Iraq that I am willing to believe that many honest liberals simply don't know the truth, or have forgotten it. Still, blatantly telling the enemy how they can win is inexcusable. And it gets people killed.

My jaw drops when I read the emotional drivel that some of you think passes as thoughtful insight.

All I can say is Mike Ster is dead on and others here are simply brain dead.

"Except of course, for getting a Democrat into the White House. And that's really the whole point, isn't it?"

That probably is the point. However, if the fools in Congress did somehow manage to ram a substantive defunding bill (as opposed to this circle jerk vote) past W, the results in Iraq and other points in the Middle East and SE Asia would quickly blow their chances of seeing the inside of the Oval Office. They would have to hit an unpredictable sweet spot where things would not go completely to sh*t until late November 08.

Agreed, Mike Ster is dead on.

Oh yes Mike is dead on. It's conceivable that "the war would be over by now" if everyone in the party that has been in the MINORITY in Congress from the time of the invasion until two months ago had publicly supported George W. Bush. Even though that would have had ZERO effect on policy, since, ummm, the Republicans have been in control of Congress during that time and almost all of them fully supported Bush's Iraq policy. And Bush has thus far gotten ever dollar he wanted to spend in Iraq without any restrictions (with many Democratic votes, I might add).
So in summary, I guess we must conclude that the words of some Democrats have more impact on the results in Iraq than the ACTIONS of the Commander-in-Chief or the ACTIONS of the insurgents or the ACTIONS of the Iraqi government.
I don't even know if the Democratic bill is necessarily the right move, but this argument is beyond absurd. I've seen partisans try to shift the blame before, but this is an all-time laughable low.

There are two options. One, we keep pouring American lives and money into Iraq forever. Two, we eventually leave. I don't think option one is politically tenable in the U.S. So we're going to leave sooner or later. It seems to me that it's not enough to say "Well, we'll leave when Iraq is stable" (which, by the way, is really lowering the bar from the lofty goals you guys had back in 2003) unless there is some kind of plan for bringing that about and some way of measuring whether it's working. I wish you guys would accept the possibility that Iraq is not becoming more stable and that there's nothing that can be done to improve the situation. A lot of people really, truly, in good faith believe that, and there's evidence to support their views. If Iraq is going to descend into anarchy no matter what we do, then we might as well leave now rather than later and concentrate on how to contain the damage to the region as a whole.

So turn the question around: can you think of anything good coming from an open ended commitment to staying? ("Demonstrating American resolve" doesn't count. Neither does hoping things will improve - hope is not a plan).

Ted, I haven't seen anybody proposing an "open ended commitment." What I have seen and what I support is a withdrawal based on clearly measurable/observable operational goals. For example, when the Iraqi Army reaches an adequate force and training level to take over security ops from Coalition forces.

It may be that as you suggest, Iraq never gets to that place, and we have to pull out in failure as you suggest. But consider the ideas underpinning that suggesting. In essence, what you are saying is that the Iraqis are culturally unable to handle freedom, and therefore must live under some form of totalitarianism. I'll leave the racist implications of such a stance as an exercise for the class. I'm curious to see if Ted would similarly argue that human rights don't apply to all people based on their respective cultures.

There is a consideration that overrules this approach, and that is the expressed will of the Iraqi people through their elected government. Regardless of the situation on the ground, if we are asked to leave, we should leave.

Uh, Ben - The Republcian majority was not what one would call overwhelming. And with the cooperation of a media that despises George Bush as much as most liberals - remember the National Guard BS? - it might have appeared to our enemies as if they had even more influence than they had. Every damn peace march is broadcast,as is every "Guantanamo is a gulag" assininity, and every false report of Korans being flushed down the toilet.
But again I point out that the loud and hateful anti-Bush drivel spewed by the likes of (INSERT PROMINENT DEMOCRAT NAME HERE), along with their unequivocal condemnation of a war they did not support had to have provided hope for the bad guys. And damn, dude, we KNOW that for a fact! How can you even begin to deny it?
You seem flabbergasted that someone could suggest that words have more impact than ACTIONS. Wake up. Words matter, especially when they might lead to actions. Oh, and guess what, Benjamin - they have! The party of appeasers are in power! And they want to surrender! Wow! Imagine that.
Go back to your rock.

As the left-wing comments over here further prove, here is an analysis on why Bush voeters in 2004 are demonstrably more successful, more intelligent, and more hardworking than Kerry voters.

The "stabbed in the back" myth won't fly this time, Mike, the Republicans have taken ownership of this war too well. They so eagerly overode the Democrats and the will of the rest of the planet to wage it their way.

Somebody wrote:

"I wish you guys would accept the possibility that Iraq is not becoming more stable and that there's nothing that can be done to improve the situation."

I'm fairly certain that there's something that can be done, but George Bush doesn't have the guts to do it. He didn't in 2003, and four years later he still doesn't. It looks like he'll never find them.

The so called option of staying until the country is stabalized isn't an option, and won't be until the current occupant of the white house is removed.