The Current Situation In Iraq

[BigRob]

Lets take a new look at the current situation in Iraq:

1) Iraqi security forces, which have grown by as many as 126,000 over the last year and have taken the lead in many security operations, such as in Sadr City and Basra in which the US military acted more as an adviser than a battlefield partner.

2) The number of US casualties last month fell to 19, a number not seen since February 2004. With Iraqi forces taking the lead there is less need for more combat troops in the area and drawbacks are expected to be announced by Patreus within the year.

3) The toll among Iraqi security forces has also fallen, from 980 in March to 506 in May.

4) Attacks are down 70% since President Bush ordered a U.S. troop increase, or "surge," early last year.

5) The UAE government recently recognized and visited the Iraqi government. This is a huge step as they are a Muslim nation and are applying pressure on other nations to do the same.

6) There is more political stability. The Sadr militias are standing down and the government is working together. The provincial elections to be held at years end will be the big test in my view, I predict that they go well.


The situation is getting better. Certainly there are some problems still be addressed, and the Iraqi government has asked for more help, which we should give them.

[NO Obamanation]

It sounds to me like it is going well but the people against the war DO NOT want to hear that. They have no intention or desire to win this. Nothing but full retreat could ever satisfy them.

Question, I don’t know but is it possible that things are worse in Afghanistan now because more of those soldiers are in Iraq. I don’t even know if the surge was taking soldiers from Afghanistan or not but I heard on the news a big breakout of prison and lots of Taliban escaped and things are doing worse there. I wondered if it was connected.

I would rather hear if it was connected by someone who is not against the war because I have come to distrust most things said by them, what ever it takes to make their point true or not, even to the point if denigrating our own troops.

So, you seem reasonable and not an anti war freak, do you think the two are connected? And if so how can it be fixed? If not connected, should we do a surge thing in Afghanistan too?

[Popeye]

Lets take a new look at the current situation in Iraq:

1) Iraqi security forces, which have grown by as many as 126,000 over the last year and have taken the lead in many security operations, such as in Sadr City and Basra in which the US military acted more as an adviser than a battlefield partner.

2) The number of US casualties last month fell to 19, a number not seen since February 2004. With Iraqi forces taking the lead there is less need for more combat troops in the area and drawbacks are expected to be announced by Patreus within the year.

3) The toll among Iraqi security forces has also fallen, from 980 in March to 506 in May.

4) Attacks are down 70% since President Bush ordered a U.S. troop increase, or "surge," early last year.

5) The UAE government recently recognized and visited the Iraqi government. This is a huge step as they are a Muslim nation and are applying pressure on other nations to do the same.

6) There is more political stability. The Sadr militias are standing down and the government is working together. The provincial elections to be held at years end will be the big test in my view, I predict that they go well.


The situation is getting better. Certainly there are some problems still be addressed, and the Iraqi government has asked for more help, which we should give them.

Hey Rob, I realize you are one of the 25%, so your predictions aren't worth....well you know. Anyway, as of 6-13 there were 4099 confirmed American dead because of a war built on lies. Of those, 3960 have died since "Mission Accomplished", 3638 since the capture of Saddam, 3240 since the handover to the Iraqi puppet government, and 2662 since the first elections.

A few questions: Is that enough for you? How many more must die? Was it really worth it? Where are the WMDs? And finally, are we ever going to bring the troops home?

You know, at this point, no stats, not anything, can justify what surely is one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in American history. It's too bad that you and others like you continue to try to justify the needless deaths of so many Americans.

[NO Obamanation]

this is what I meant *looks up*

[BigRob]

It sounds to me like it is going well but the people against the war DO NOT want to hear that. They have no intention or desire to win this. Nothing but full retreat could ever satisfy them.

Question, I don’t know but is it possible that things are worse in Afghanistan now because more of those soldiers are in Iraq. I don’t even know if the surge was taking soldiers from Afghanistan or not but I heard on the news a big breakout of prison and lots of Taliban escaped and things are doing worse there. I wondered if it was connected.

I would rather hear if it was connected by someone who is not against the war because I have come to distrust most things said by them, what ever it takes to make their point true or not, even to the point if denigrating our own troops.

So, you seem reasonable and not an anti war freak, do you think the two are connected? And if so how can it be fixed? If not connected, should we do a surge thing in Afghanistan too?

I think the situation in Afghanistan is very different from the one in Iraq. I say this for a few reasons.

- The religious divide is not as great in Afghanistan as in Iraq. Iraq is about 65% Shia Muslim and 35% Sunni Muslim. There are some other small groups but these are the biggest. Added to that is the issues of the Kurds, who encompass about 15-20% of the total population

-In Afghanistan on the other hand, the population is about 80% Sunni Muslim and about 20% Shia Muslim with some other small groups.

- Also in Afghanistan the United States is not left running the mission alone. NATO is heavily involved and plays a very large in helping to maintain the security as well.

- Further, Afghanistan's economy is recovering from decades of conflict. The economy has improved significantly since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001 largely because of the infusion of international assistance, the recovery of the agricultural sector, and service sector growth.

- Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, also does not possess really any oil to speak of. So while Iraq is able to capitalize on record oil prices in an effort to rebuild, Afghanistan is unable to do, further exacerbating the problem.

-Expanding poppy cultivation and a growing opium trade generate roughly $4 billion in illicit economic activity and looms as one of Kabul's most serious policy concerns as well. That said, GDP grew by 12.4% in 2007.


Given this backdrop one must also consider that before any invasion of Afghanistan even took place, Afghanistan was on the verge of being a failed state to begin with. This makes it even harder to turn the economy around give people alternative paths to their lives.

To answer your question of should a "surge" be done in Afghanistan I would say there already has been one. The United States sent an additional 3,200 marines into the Southern area of Afghanistan this year to combat an expected upswing in violence. These soldiers are due to leave by the end of the year and NATO has been working to find replacements for them.

That said, I do not think that the American troop presence in Iraq is taking away from the security of the mission in Afghanistan given that NATO allies are making up the difference. There are about 16,000 US combat soldiers in Afghanistan in a force of over 51,000 NATO soldiers.

Also, when looking at the problems in Afghanistan it matters who you are fighting as well. In the Southern area of the country the Taliban has been making some comebacks, while the areas on the Pakistani border are basically a safe haven for Al Quada. Since the US is not allowed to cross the border with Pakistan, it is hard to root out these insurgents and really win the battle there, regardless of the troop count you put in place there.

[BigRob]

Hey Rob, I realize you are one of the 25%, so your predictions aren't worth....well you know. Anyway, as of 6-13 there were 4099 confirmed American dead because of a war built on lies. Of those, 3960 have died since "Mission Accomplished", 3638 since the capture of Saddam, 3240 since the handover to the Iraqi puppet government, and 2662 since the first elections.

A few questions: Is that enough for you? How many more must die? Was it really worth it? Where are the WMDs? And finally, are we ever going to bring the troops home?

You know, at this point, no stats, not anything, can justify what surely is one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in American history. It's too bad that you and others like you continue to try to justify the needless deaths of so many Americans.

Are you going to refute the situation as I laid it out, or just throw out body counts? What you anti-war people need to realize is this. We are in Iraq, mistake or not. People dying is a tragedy, but we have to now reassess the situation as it is, not as it was in 2001.

Iraq certainly was a foreign policy blunder, but I think the bigger foreign policy blunder is now to turn around and abandon the moderate Arab states in the Middle East who expect us to keep our word and bring stability to Iraq.
We will never have legitimacy with rouge regimes like the current regime in Iran, but we still possess legitimacy with moderate Arab states like Egypt, the UAE, Kuwait, and even with Saudi Arabia to an extent.

So yes, 4000 soldiers dead is a tragedy, yes the war was mismanaged, but no we cannot simply pull out, as that is an even worse decision than going in was.

[NO Obamanation]

I think the situation in Afghanistan is very different from the one in Iraq. I say this for a few reasons.

- The religious divide is not as great in Afghanistan as in Iraq. Iraq is about 65% Shia Muslim and 35% Sunni Muslim. There are some other small groups but these are the biggest. Added to that is the issues of the Kurds, who encompass about 15-20% of the total population

-In Afghanistan on the other hand, the population is about 80% Sunni Muslim and about 20% Shia Muslim with some other small groups.

- Also in Afghanistan the United States is not left running the mission alone. NATO is heavily involved and plays a very large in helping to maintain the security as well.

- Further, Afghanistan's economy is recovering from decades of conflict. The economy has improved significantly since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001 largely because of the infusion of international assistance, the recovery of the agricultural sector, and service sector growth.

- Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, also does not possess really any oil to speak of. So while Iraq is able to capitalize on record oil prices in an effort to rebuild, Afghanistan is unable to do, further exacerbating the problem.

-Expanding poppy cultivation and a growing opium trade generate roughly $4 billion in illicit economic activity and looms as one of Kabul's most serious policy concerns as well. That said, GDP grew by 12.4% in 2007.


Given this backdrop one must also consider that before any invasion of Afghanistan even took place, Afghanistan was on the verge of being a failed state to begin with. This makes it even harder to turn the economy around give people alternative paths to their lives.

To answer your question of should a "surge" be done in Afghanistan I would say there already has been one. The United States sent an additional 3,200 marines into the Southern area of Afghanistan this year to combat an expected upswing in violence. These soldiers are due to leave by the end of the year and NATO has been working to find replacements for them.

That said, I do not think that the American troop presence in Iraq is taking away from the security of the mission in Afghanistan given that NATO allies are making up the difference. There are about 16,000 US combat soldiers in Afghanistan in a force of over 51,000 NATO soldiers.

Also, when looking at the problems in Afghanistan it matters who you are fighting as well. In the Southern area of the country the Taliban has been making some comebacks, while the areas on the Pakistani border are basically a safe haven for Al Quada. Since the US is not allowed to cross the border with Pakistan, it is hard to root out these insurgents and really win the battle there, regardless of the troop count you put in place there.

Thank you Rob for the good information :)

[BigRob]

Thank you Rob for the good information :)

Anytime :)

[Popeye]

Are you going to refute the situation as I laid it out, or just throw out body counts? What you anti-war people need to realize is this. We are in Iraq, mistake or not. People dying is a tragedy, but we have to now reassess the situation as it is, not as it was in 2001.

Iraq certainly was a foreign policy blunder, but I think the bigger foreign policy blunder is now to turn around and abandon the moderate Arab states in the Middle East who expect us to keep our word and bring stability to Iraq.
We will never have legitimacy with rouge regimes like the current regime in Iran, but we still possess legitimacy with moderate Arab states like Egypt, the UAE, Kuwait, and even with Saudi Arabia to an extent.

So yes, 4000 soldiers dead is a tragedy, yes the war was mismanaged, but no we cannot simply pull out, as that is an even worse decision than going in was.

I notice you give but just a cursory nod to all those that have died, thanks to the lies of your Republican president. Those body counts can be awfully inconvenient when they lost their lives because of the deceit of your Republican administration.

Instead of giving us more of this rosy outlook BS, that we have been hearing for some 5 years, why don't you use your self described expertise and provide a scenario under which the troops can finally come home. Or do you side with John McCain, not really caring if they come home or not? Hey, after all, they can stay in Iraq 100 years.

[BigRob]

I notice you give but just a cursory nod to all those that have died, thanks to the lies of your Republican president. Those body counts can be awfully inconvenient when they lost their lives because of the deceit of your Republican administration.

Instead of giving us more of this rosy outlook BS, that we have hearing for some 5 years, why don't you use self described expertise and provide a scenario under which the troops can finally come home. Or do you side with John McCain, not really caring if they come home or not? Hey, after all, they can stay in Iraq 100 years.

We have been in Europe and Asia for close to 70 years now, I do not hear you complaining, screaming for them to come home. McCain's comment was he would not mind keeping bases in Iraq (as we have all over Europe and Asia) as long as soldiers were out of harms way.

Yes, these soldiers died under a Republican administration, and yes it is a tragedy, but nothing you have said has any bearing on the actual facts on the ground at present.

The solution that will bring the soldiers home is to continue training the Iraqi Army and security forces and continue to allow them to take the lead in security operations. Exactly what we are doing. We have to ensure that the Kurdish area will not attempt to break away when we leave as well as that will enrage Turkey.

The path we are on now is the correct path to follow. It will bring about stability as more and more Iraqi's take the lead on security missions (as they have been doing). Iraqi citizens are more apt to listen to Iraqi security forces when they take the lead than to American soldiers on patrol. That said we must maintain a presence to train them in a climate of stability. The average Iraqi citizen has all but rejected Al Quada at this point as well and is willing to give the Iraqi government a chance to work. Why is it that we are not?

[Popeye]

We have been in Europe and Asia for close to 70 years now, I do not hear you complaining, screaming for them to come home. McCain's comment was he would not mind keeping bases in Iraq (as we have all over Europe and Asia) as long as soldiers were out of harms way. Supporters of the Iraq war have continually tried to compare Iraq with WW II. First it was..Saddam is just like Hitler (sure he was) now it's the we've been in Europe for over 60 years, why not Iraq? It's not analogous in any way shape or form.

As for Asia, notice we're not in Vietnam, that's because we got our asses kicked. That appears to be the only way to get us to leave from anywhere.

Yes, these soldiers died under a Republican administration, and yes it is a tragedy, but nothing you have said has any bearing on the actual facts on the ground at present. It has a big bearing, at least the American people think so, witness Bush's record low approval ratings and the loss of Congress by the GOP. Only one good thing has come out of this so far, the vast majority of voters have finally seen the murderous thuggery present in the Bush Administration.

The solution that will bring the soldiers home is to continue training the Iraqi Army and security forces and continue to allow them to take the lead in security operations. Exactly what we are doing. We have to ensure that the Kurdish area will not attempt to break away when we leave as well as that will enrage Turkey.

The path we are on now is the correct path to follow. It will bring about stability as more and more Iraqi's take the lead on security missions (as they have been doing). Iraqi citizens are more apt to listen to Iraqi security forces when they take the lead than to American soldiers on patrol. That said we must maintain a presence to train them in a climate of stability. The average Iraqi citizen has all but rejected Al Quada at this point as well and is willing to give the Iraqi government a chance to work. Why is it that we are not?

I've been hearing almost everything you said word for word over and over again. Trouble is the goal posts keep getting moved. First it was those elusive WMDs, then it was about regime change, now it's all about stability for the Iraqi government. Could it be the real truth is that the American imperialists don't really want to come home? Well not until Exxon Mobil says the oil fields are dry anyway.

About a week and a half ago, 31 Iraqi legislators, representing a majority of the Iraq Parliament, expressed "widespread disapproval of the proposed U.S.-Iraq security agreement if it does not include a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops" In other words, the Iraqi Parliament, representing the Iraqi people, wants a timetable set. Bush has always claimed we will leave when the Iraqis request we do so, want to bet that was another lie?

[Federal Farmer]

I notice you give but just a cursory nod to all those that have died, thanks to the lies of your Republican president. Those body counts can be awfully inconvenient when they lost their lives because of the deceit of your Republican administration.

Yeah, they're really awful, especially when compared to very small number of deaths attributed to Dimocrap Presidents like James Buchanan who set the stage for the Civil War that gave us a million dead and wounded Americans, Woodrow Wilson who got us into WWI which resulted in 320,000 American servicemen killed and wounded, Franklin D. Roosevelt who got us into WWII which resulted in over 1 million dead and wounded servicemen, Harry S. Truman who got us into Korea which resulted in 140,000 dead and wounded American servicemen, and John F. Kennedy who got us into Vietnam which resulted in 211,000 dead and wounded American servicemen.

Yup, Bush is a regular "war criminal" by those standards.:rolleyes:

[BigRob]

Supporters of the Iraq war have continually tried to compare Iraq with WW II. First it was..Saddam is just like Hitler (sure he was) now it's the we've been in Europe for over 60 years, why not Iraq? It's not analogous in any way shape or form.

Well we are there are we not. As the world hegemon we have to exert our influence. I have never once compared the Iraq War with WWII nor will I ever, the main point I made is that we cannot abandon our moderate arab friends in the region, and that is a foreign policy disaster. The same was true in Europe and Asia when we stayed because we had to contain Communism, there are more issues in foreign policy that simply troop presence alone.


As for Asia, notice we're not in Vietnam, that's because we got our asses kicked. That appears to be the only way to get us to leave from anywhere.

Are you suggesting that you want us to lose?


It has a big bearing, at least the American people think so, witness Bush's record low approval ratings and the loss of Congress by the GOP. Only one good thing has come out of this so far, the vast majority of voters have finally seen the murderous thuggery present in the Bush Administration.

In reality, and in the situation on the ground, no matter what the public approval rating is, what is happening is what I have laid out above. Like it or not, things have improved, and we need to continue to work to see that they do.



I've been hearing almost everything you said word for word over and over again. Trouble is the goal posts keep getting moved. First it was those elusive WMDs, then it was about regime change, now it's all about stability for the Iraqi government. Could it be the real truth is that the American imperialists don't really want to come home? Well not until Exxon Mobil says the oil fields are dry anyway.

Like I have said numerous times before, the reasons for going in were wrong, but foreign policy implications for a withdrawal are disasterous right now. We cannot leave right now. And in reality oil profits percentwise are not as large in other industries, and interestingly Exxon is actually getting out of the retail gas business. Interesting move. And if you are so averse to Exxon making money and leaving everyone else out, buy some Exxon stock, I did.


About a week and a half ago, 31 Iraqi legislators, representing a majority of the Iraq Parliament, expressed "widespread disapproval of the proposed U.S.-Iraq security agreement if it does not include a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops" In other words, the Iraqi Parliament, representing the Iraqi people, wants a timetable set. Bush has always claimed we will leave when the Iraqis request we do so, want to bet that was another lie?

If al-Maliki wants the US to leave, why did he go to the UN and ask for another 1 year mandate to be given to US soldiers? Further, the Iraqi legislature is composed of 275 members. I do not see how 31 is a majority of anything.

[Federal Farmer]

As for Asia, notice we're not in Vietnam, that's because we got our asses kicked.

Uh, Popeye, the last time I checked, we WON the war in '72 by bombing the N. Vietnamese to the peace table. Saigon didn't fall until '75, because a Democrat controlled Congress reneged on our Treaty with S. Vietnam, and prevented President Ford from providing any more military support to them, after we'd already been gone for over 2 years, so exactly how did we get "our asses kicked"?

An analogy I read on another Forum went something like this; If you and I play a doubles match of tennis and win, but 2 years later, you play a singles match against one of our former opponants, and lose, how does your loss translate into a loss for me, when I wasn't even in the game (it's kind of hard to lose a match you weren't even participating in)?

[foggedinn]

I consider the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq to be statistically insignificant. Given the number and ages of our forces in Iraq, at least that many would have died from DUI wreaks, drug overdoses, muggings, driveby shootings, or just plane old accidents had those same soldiers never been sent to Iraq. It's diffinitely counter-intuitive, but, their probably safer in Iraq than on the streets of America.

By the time we had been in Iraq for 6 months, it was easy enough to see that we couldn't leave and we can't stay. When we do eventually leave, unless we install and arm a strongman like Saddam, there will be a bloodbath on a par with the Cambodian killing fields.

The latest U.N. estimates I've seen are that there are at least 2 million Iraqi refugess in Syria and Jordan. They can't stay where their at and have nowhere to go. Depending on whose figures you go by, there may have been upwards of half a million Iraqis killed as a result of our presence there.

We continue to hemorage our national wealth for no clearly defined reason.

We really got our tit caught in the ringer on this one.

[BigRob]

I consider the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq to be statistically insignificant. Given the number and ages of our forces in Iraq, at least that many would have died from DUI wreaks, drug overdoses, muggings, driveby shootings, or just plane old accidents had those same soldiers never been sent to Iraq. It's diffinitely counter-intuitive, but, their probably safer in Iraq than on the streets of America.

I respectfully disagree.


By the time we had been in Iraq for 6 months, it was easy enough to see that we couldn't leave and we can't stay. When we do eventually leave, unless we install and arm a strongman like Saddam, there will be a bloodbath on a par with the Cambodian killing fields.

I think this argument held more weight one year ago. The situation on the ground has changed dramatically and I think that if we continue to train the Iraqi security forces and let them take the lead that a democratically elected government can function in Iraq when we eventually start phasing out. I do not think this time has arrived yet, but we are on the right path.


The latest U.N. estimates I've seen are that there are at least 2 million Iraqi refugess in Syria and Jordan. They can't stay where their at and have nowhere to go. Depending on whose figures you go by, there may have been upwards of half a million Iraqis killed as a result of our presence there.

This is accurate. Mostly in these nations they have gone to they are heavily discriminated against, however the good thing that is coming out of this is that most Iraqi refugees abroad do not identify along religious lines anymore and identify with each other as Iraqi. When they return home, this collective experience and identity can play a large role in the future success of Iraq.

[pocketfullofshells]

It sounds to me like it is going well but the people against the war DO NOT want to hear that. They have no intention or desire to win this. Nothing but full retreat could ever satisfy them.

Question, I don’t know but is it possible that things are worse in Afghanistan now because more of those soldiers are in Iraq. I don’t even know if the surge was taking soldiers from Afghanistan or not but I heard on the news a big breakout of prison and lots of Taliban escaped and things are doing worse there. I wondered if it was connected.

I would rather hear if it was connected by someone who is not against the war because I have come to distrust most things said by them, what ever it takes to make their point true or not, even to the point if denigrating our own troops.

So, you seem reasonable and not an anti war freak, do you think the two are connected? And if so how can it be fixed? If not connected, should we do a surge thing in Afghanistan too?

I can tell you that its only in part connected. The Resources are in fact stretched, but the fact is Bush from the start never wanted to put the troops down in harms way to get this job done. Fact is we put to much on the northern alliance and Way to much on Pakistan Security Forces. The Northern Alliance was riddled with Spies for the Taliban, and people who's loyalties could shift on us. Pakistan to many with Loyalties that where to the Taliban and not the Government of Pakistan. Also the Reaction was waaayyyy to slow. We should have hit targets the sec we where sure what happened. we gave them a month to escape. Then failed to send the Troops needed and requested in Tora Bora ( read Jawbreaker, a great read) We failed from the start to put the needed boots on the ground.

Next we failed to put the money into support that was needed overall to
build a system that could meet the goals of building a nation able to stand up to groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. To be realistic we where asking to much I think from the start, but we failed to meet he needs to really try those goals. Its possible troops where held back to save them for Iraq, but I think its more likely they where held back because Bush did not want to have to much blood on his hands and though it could be done with way to small of amount, relying mostly on special forces.

And just as a note of good./bad....Afghanistan had more US troops killed I guess then Iraq last month. Think about that when you think about Iraq a year or 2 down the line, who knows maybe it could flare back up just like Afghanistan has, steady more and more attacks.

As for would a Surge work in Afghanistan work? my Guess is no, not like Iraq ( and you will note that while I am clearly one who has said this war has been a disaster built on lies, I was calling for he Surge back at the very start of the war, and supported the current one, though saying the same thing I will say about Afghanistan...to little to late. The only real way to stop whats going on In Afghanistan is to lean on Pakistan, or just say Screw them and hit targets in West Pakistan where the leadership, and base camps are for the new Taliban resistance.

[Bunz]

Lets take a new look at the current situation in Iraq:

1) Iraqi security forces, which have grown by as many as 126,000 over the last year and have taken the lead in many security operations, such as in Sadr City and Basra in which the US military acted more as an adviser than a battlefield partner.

2) The number of US casualties last month fell to 19, a number not seen since February 2004. With Iraqi forces taking the lead there is less need for more combat troops in the area and drawbacks are expected to be announced by Patreus within the year.

3) The toll among Iraqi security forces has also fallen, from 980 in March to 506 in May.

4) Attacks are down 70% since President Bush ordered a U.S. troop increase, or "surge," early last year.

5) The UAE government recently recognized and visited the Iraqi government. This is a huge step as they are a Muslim nation and are applying pressure on other nations to do the same.

6) There is more political stability. The Sadr militias are standing down and the government is working together. The provincial elections to be held at years end will be the big test in my view, I predict that they go well.


The situation is getting better. Certainly there are some problems still be addressed, and the Iraqi government has asked for more help, which we should give them.

Could you provide some evidence of your claims here. I am not disclaiming any of them, but getting some idea of the source is always nice. A link or two would help out a lot.

Either way, I am glad that casualties are down. That is really good news. There is nothing more that I want than an immediate end to hostilities in Iraq. If fighting ended tomorrow I would rejoice.

McCain is true to a point in his remarks about it being not about presence but about casualties. As someone who has had the gamut of positions on the Iraq situation. I think it would be very unwise for the US to not maintain very long term bases there. At least 4-6 major American military installations should be maintained indefinately.

A few things I will add though from reports on the ground is that the situation is getting better but still very fragile. It is one major incident away from descending into ethnic cleansing once again.

I havent heard, but havent been paying much attention, have they figured out thier breakdown of oil revenues? It would be very wise to, at this point create a system such as the Alaska Permanent Fund, whereas individual Iraqs would share in the wealth from the oil revenues. But still plenty funds government.

In the overall, I am cautiously optomistic about the situation. One thing that is being largely ignored in this whole situation and what will be its ultimate failure in it, will be that it was to expensive. The costs of this are unbelievable, under estimated, and at that rate we are going, I am not convinced 4 more years of war on the volunteer forces is sustainable. Nor am I convinced the American economy can sustain it.

[Russmor]

I respectfully disagree.

I agree with your disagreement. Every life is significant. You can't brush aside 4000 lives and over 20000 more casualties as "insignificant"

I think this argument held more weight one year ago. The situation on the ground has changed dramatically and I think that if we continue to train the Iraqi security forces and let them take the lead that a democratically elected government can function in Iraq when we eventually start phasing out. I do not think this time has arrived yet, but we are on the right path.

The government is improving the situation yes...but the government has not yet become fully functional and we don't even know when that could be. There have been month long lulls in violence before this and the violence has came back. I don't understand how we can believe it till it lasts.

This is accurate. Mostly in these nations they have gone to they are heavily discriminated against, however the good thing that is coming out of this is that most Iraqi refugees abroad do not identify along religious lines anymore and identify with each other as Iraqi. When they return home, this collective experience and identity can play a large role in the future success of Iraq.

if the people return to Iraq and then see the religious turmoil that new self-identity can fall apart. Iraq is still a fragile place and I believe that us staying there isn't helping things at the moment...We are merely reducing our ability to help others who desperately need and request our help such as those in Darfur.

[BigRob]

Could you provide some evidence of your claims here. I am not disclaiming any of them, but getting some idea of the source is always nice. A link or two would help out a lot.

Either way, I am glad that casualties are down. That is really good news. There is nothing more that I want than an immediate end to hostilities in Iraq. If fighting ended tomorrow I would rejoice.

McCain is true to a point in his remarks about it being not about presence but about casualties. As someone who has had the gamut of positions on the Iraq situation. I think it would be very unwise for the US to not maintain very long term bases there. At least 4-6 major American military installations should be maintained indefinately.

A few things I will add though from reports on the ground is that the situation is getting better but still very fragile. It is one major incident away from descending into ethnic cleansing once again.

I havent heard, but havent been paying much attention, have they figured out thier breakdown of oil revenues? It would be very wise to, at this point create a system such as the Alaska Permanent Fund, whereas individual Iraqs would share in the wealth from the oil revenues. But still plenty funds government.

In the overall, I am cautiously optomistic about the situation. One thing that is being largely ignored in this whole situation and what will be its ultimate failure in it, will be that it was to expensive. The costs of this are unbelievable, under estimated, and at that rate we are going, I am not convinced 4 more years of war on the volunteer forces is sustainable. Nor am I convinced the American economy can sustain it.

Story (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/06/iraqi_security_force_14.php)

• Initial force planning and the intelligence estimates of the threat in Basrah were incorrect. However, in subsequent operations, in Sadr City, this failure seems to have been addressed.
• The Iraqi Army response, moving a division of reinforcements to Basrah in five days, demonstrated a monumental improvement in operational logistics and mobility over 18 months previous.
• One Iraqi battalion broke, It was a new battalion (1-52) in a green brigade (52nd) that had graduated training a month previously. This was presented in the press as a symbol of the lack of capabilities of the Iraqi Army. What it represented was the low end of the Iraqi Army - the capabilities of recruits fresh out of boot camp. A classic example of why it takes time to grow an army. The 1-52 Battalion has since reformed and is receiving urban combat training. On the other hand, the performance of the experienced units, such as the 1st Quick Reaction Force was significantly better.
• The ability of the ISF to defeat the recent uprising in most of southern Iraq and to contain Sadr City until sufficient forces were available to deal with that area, despite elements from Baghdad, Babil, and Karbala being temporarily deployed to Basrah, demonstrate the improvements to the ISF overall.
• The Army has now demonstrated the ability to simultaneously operate three separate corps level operations (Baghdad, Mosul, and Basrah). Eighteen months ago they did not have a functional corps command.
• The Army has demonstrated the ability to move a division of reinforcements anywhere in the country within a week. Its a major improvement over 18 months previous.
• The Ministry of Interior has demonstrated the ability to deploy a reinforced brigade anywhere in Iraq in a week. Significant improvement.
• The rapid deployment of Emergency Response Brigades and Iraqi National Police forces to Basrah and Mosul demonstrates major improvements in MoI forces mobility and capabilities, although their logistics are still lagging.

Many good improvements, but obviously still work to be done.

The reports of the deaths being down has been all over the news, I assume that I do not need to link those stories, as has the story about the UAE visit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7437314.stm).

Violence decline. (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq26-2008may26,0,6476720.story)

As for the oil breakdown, there are still problems, the latest situation I am aware of is it:

Despite negotiators reaching conclusions on the distribution mechanisms for sharing Iraqi's oil wealth, the crucial questions of which type of investor relations and contractual mechanisms will be adopted , ie who will control Iraq's oil and through what means are still unanswered.

The US administration and much of the international media have represented the oil law as part of a peace plan for Iraq – a recipe for overcoming sectarianism - the same approach is demonstrated in the nature of the actual revenue sharing law. However, the US proposal that revenues be divided along sectarian and ethnic lines is more likely to do the opposite.

Furthermore, the existing oil law risks enshrining sectarianised decision-making through the creation of a Federal Oil and Gas Council (Article 5c). This council will have supreme decision-making powers over how and with which companies’ Iraqi oil will be developed and controlled. Its authority will exceed that of the cabinet, parliament, Ministry of Oil and Iraqi National Oil Company. Council members are likely to represent the parties and forces currently in government in Iraq. These parties have been organized along ethnic and sectarian lines rather than on the basis of political platforms.

Current competition between political forces in government with sectarian agendas and ambitions regarding the religious and political map of Iraq, could escalate if decision making powers over economic development are added to their spheres of authority. Iraq’s economic development risks becoming politically sectarianised. This would have serious social and political implications for the inhabitants of those regions and risks deepening and entrenching existing divisions. Some commentators suggest that this is a deliberate tactic on the part of the occcupation powers to foster divisions and undermine popular and united resistance to the oil control plans of multinational companies.

[BigRob]

The government is improving the situation yes...but the government has not yet become fully functional and we don't even know when that could be. There have been month long lulls in violence before this and the violence has came back. I don't understand how we can believe it till it lasts.

All true, the government needs more time, and we should give it to them. Compared to where the government was at its creation, we are light years ahead of where we were. The violence has lulled before indeed, however, this lull has been much longer and the Iraqi people are more accepting of giving the government a chance now, as they are tired of the violence as well.



if the people return to Iraq and then see the religious turmoil that new self-identity can fall apart. Iraq is still a fragile place and I believe that us staying there isn't helping things at the moment...We are merely reducing our ability to help others who desperately need and request our help such as those in Darfur.

True, it can. That said, if they return home to a functioning government and a peaceful society they will be able to further break down the sectarian barriers. It is indeed a fragile situation, but if handled properly I think it can become a relatively stable democracy.

[The Scotsman]

Lets take a new look at the current situation in Iraq:

1) Iraqi security forces, which have grown by as many as 126,000 over the last year and have taken the lead in many security operations, such as in Sadr City and Basra in which the US military acted more as an adviser than a battlefield partner.

2) The number of US casualties last month fell to 19, a number not seen since February 2004. With Iraqi forces taking the lead there is less need for more combat troops in the area and drawbacks are expected to be announced by Patreus within the year.

3) The toll among Iraqi security forces has also fallen, from 980 in March to 506 in May.

4) Attacks are down 70% since President Bush ordered a U.S. troop increase, or "surge," early last year.

5) The UAE government recently recognized and visited the Iraqi government. This is a huge step as they are a Muslim nation and are applying pressure on other nations to do the same.

6) There is more political stability. The Sadr militias are standing down and the government is working together. The provincial elections to be held at years end will be the big test in my view, I predict that they go well.


The situation is getting better. Certainly there are some problems still be addressed, and the Iraqi government has asked for more help, which we should give them.

If you knew that your enemy was on the verge of retreat due to internal politics would you continue attacking him?

No you'd let him leave and then reassert yourself in the power vacuum ;)

[BigRob]

If you knew that your enemy was on the verge of retreat due to internal politics would you continue attacking him?

No you'd let him leave and then reassert yourself in the power vacuum ;)

Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between the Al Quada elements in Iraq and the Sunni and Shia militias.

[The Scotsman]

Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between the Al Quada elements in Iraq and the Sunni and Shia militias........exactly that's the point! Each grouping or faction needs the Allies to disappear in order to further their goal.

[BigRob]

.......exactly that's the point! Each grouping or faction needs the Allies to disappear in order to further their goal.

I still think that with the Iraqi population turned against Al Quada, and deals made with the Sadr militia, and added to the effect that refugees who return home can have on the population (as they have been identifying with each other as only Iraqi abroad and not along sectarian lines) that there is a decent shot some form of political compromise in the Iraqi government.

[The Scotsman]

You have to question the level of validity that the Iraqi people attach to the "Iraqi Government". Don't forget that this is a pure creation by an "invading" force held together by the US/UK coalition, in essence it is an accomodation of and for so many disparate groups and sects as to be a nonsense. As an executive functioning independent of the US I feel it would fragment and create more problems than solutions.

[top gun]

The big picture with full discloser is really this...

Total lie going in which was proven 100% once we got there.

We are now doing nothing more than squandering Taxpayer money @ $12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH on a very obvious Nation Building campaign.

The two major faction will ebb and flow back & forth from super high violence to relatively low violence at their will until they decide not to... and if history is any indicator they will most likely never decide to.

5 or 6 years have past (longer than WW2) and we still don't even have one of the major factions participating in the "government".

Let's just be honest. If we stay forever at say 8 to 12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH we can militarily police Iraq and keep a lid on things somewhat. I'd liken it to a prison camp. As long as there are enough guards there will still be some killings but the prison is contained.

The problem is this isn't our country. The feuding factions can keep this up forever and we can't because of their one huge advantage... they have no where else to go, it's their home. America from an economic disaster stand point hasn't even begun to see the effects this astronomical deficit spending will create. People that see the economy steadily worsening have to understand this is nothing yet. Every month that goes by quagmired in Iraq is unfortunately another nail in our own economic coffin here at home.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out that every single soldier's life is as important as all the rest. It's such common knowledge that we never should have invaded in the first place I just don't see how anyone can still continue to justify it in any way.

[Andy]

I notice you give but just a cursory nod to all those that have died, thanks to the lies of your Republican president.

We've been over this already. The Rockefeller report (http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3105) conclusively proves there were no lies. The claims that were made, were supported by the intelligence at the time.

Thanks for you time, here's a copy of the home game, you are dismissed.

[BigRob]

5 or 6 years have past (longer than WW2) and we still don't even have one of the major factions participating in the "government".


Yes the Sunni's boycotted the 2005 elections but have since agreed to participate in the upcoming elections.

And with a turnout of 80% in the 2005 elections I would say that the average Iraqi citizen has spoken and views for the most part their government as legitimate.

[BigRob]

You have to question the level of validity that the Iraqi people attach to the "Iraqi Government". Don't forget that this is a pure creation by an "invading" force held together by the US/UK coalition, in essence it is an accomodation of and for so many disparate groups and sects as to be a nonsense. As an executive functioning independent of the US I feel it would fragment and create more problems than solutions.

I hope not, I think it all depends on the next elections to see if the government will make it or not.

[Andy]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]The big picture with full discloser is really this...

Total lie going in which was proven 100% once we got there.

Sorry, Rockefeller report and the post-war senate report, both prove conclusively, there was no lie. Thanks for your time, see you later, bye.

[The Scotsman]

Petraeus himself said it's unlikely that Iraqi security forces can take the lead in all 18 provinces this year, as was recently predicted by the Pentagon.

"The overall trend in Iraq is positive, but we should be skeptical about overly optimistic assessments that we've 'turned the corner' in Iraq," said Eric Rosenbach of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and a former staffer of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

"It's more appropriate to say that we have a long road ahead of us rather than we've turned the corner."

The reason for such caution is that many of the issues that contributed to the Iraq conflict remain unresolved — notably how the various ethnic and religious groups will share power.

Last August, the largest Sunni Arab political bloc pulled out of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Cabinet, complaining it wasn't getting enough say in decision-making. Talks on a Sunni return broke down this week.

In the north, tensions between Arabs and Kurds are smoldering, especially in key cities such as Kirkuk and Mosul. Mohanad Hazim, a schoolteacher in Mosul, warned that the presence of Kurdish soldiers in his city "is a matter of great worry and concern" among his fellow Arabs.

I think that if you are looking for an "easy out" its un-realistic and would probably cause the collapse of the Iraqi Government and civil war, which would impact on the US in an economic manner in that the oil would probably cease to flow. The best I think that will happen is perhaps a withdrawl from some of the urban areas and the creation of internal buffer zones. The creation of these will allow the Iraqi forces access to US ground and air support when required as well as allow continued training and further to act as a deterent to Iran. You are due to pull out troops shortly anyway the 5 surge battalions are due to rotate out in July so overall troop commitment will come down.

As for a full withdrawl that would be a very precipitous and reckless move.

[BigRob]

As for a full withdrawl that would be a very precipitous and reckless move.

I agree 100%. Been saying that since the war started.

[Andy]

As for a full withdrawl that would be a very precipitous and reckless move.

As scary as it sounds... agreed.

[top gun]

Yes the Sunni's boycotted the 2005 elections but have since agreed to participate in the upcoming elections.

And with a turnout of 80% in the 2005 elections I would say that the average Iraqi citizen has spoken and views for the most part their government as legitimate.

The Sunni's walked away from the table and have not returned.

Yes there was a big turnout at the last election... but there is an obvious reason why. It's all about the power grab... not about democracy. In a democracy you agree to go along and respect the election outcomes even if your side looses. That will just NEVER be the case in Iraq.

And democracy isn't always something we like anyway. We pushed for free and open elections with the Palestinians and got Hamas. Now we want to remove what was democratically elected.

Very slippery slope over there... it's way past time to redeploy the heck out of that astronomically expensive quagmire.

[top gun]

Sorry, Rockefeller report and the post-war senate report, both prove conclusively, there was no lie. Thanks for your time, see you later, bye.

Au contraire... so many lies you just can't post em all! :(

Did George W. Bush Invade Iraq by Lying?

Why did Bush start a war that:

Has killed more than 200 American servicemen and women, and seriously injured hundreds more
Has killed thousands of Iraq civilians, many of them women and children
Will cost American Tax payers more than $100 Billion, of money desperately needed here at home
Has destroyed America’s credibility around the world
Has already significantly damaged morale, confidence, and the readiness of the US armed forces


Here’s what Bush said:
Bush’s Claim vs. Reality

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has 500 tons of chemical weapons:

- Sarin gas

- Mustard gas

- VX Nerve agent

Not True
Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has 30,000 weapons capable of dumping chemical weapons on people

Not True
Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq

"We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world

Not True
Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda
And implied that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11

Not True
Zero Al Qaeda Connection
To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.


"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has attempted to purchase metal tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production

Not True
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002
Iraq is rebuilding nuclear facilities at former sites.
Not True

Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa

Not True
The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003
Iraq has Nuclear Weapons for a fact

Not True

“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
Iraq’s Saddam Hussein refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq

Not True
UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2


As a matter of fact the Bush administration lied 935 times on Iraq!!! :eek: WATCH...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeC27beZr7s

[The Scotsman]

...... That will just NEVER be the case in Iraq. [/B]

Iraq, indeed most middle eastern counrties have never been a democracy its an alien culture for them so that's no surprise really! Do you think that is a consideration that should have been addressed prior to the invasion?

...... Very slippery slope over there... it's way past time to redeploy the heck out of that astronomically expensive quagmire.

Do you think that the USA should be more insular then? Why do you feel that when the job is only halfway through its time to pull out?

Personally I think you do your country a disservice! Surely if you start something you need the guts and determination to see it through? otherwise the rest of the world will just take you as a bunch of quitters and not take you seriously. You have given yourself the rather grand sobriquet TopGun live up to it and put some steel in your backbone :rolleyes:

[top gun]

The Scotsman;42646]Iraq, indeed most middle eastern counrties have never been a democracy its an alien culture for them so that's no surprise really! Do you think that is a consideration that should have been addressed prior to the invasion?

Well absolutely. George W. Bush's own father when asked why he didn't follow the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait and all the way to Baghdad in the first Gulf War said this... Because there would be no exit strategy once we got there. Now I'm not the biggest fan of the First President Bush... but he was an old CIA guy. Which made him about a thousand times smarter than his son on foreign policy I guess.

Do you think that the USA should be more insular then? Why do you feel that when the job is only halfway through its time to pull out?

That's the whole point... it will never "be done". Add to that most Americans are so pissed because we now know we were lied to going in. Add to that we already have over 4000 honorable & brave dead soldiers and over 30,000 critically wounded. Add to that the cost is helping to break our economy here at home.

Sometimes you just have to face up to a blunder and let the locals work out there own problem. It's not like we've only been there a year or two. We've been in Iraq longer than the entirety of WW2.

Personally I think you do your country a disservice! Surely if you start something you need the guts and determination to see it through? otherwise the rest of the world will just take you as a bunch of quitters and not take you seriously. You have given yourself the rather grand sobriquet TopGun live up to it and put some steel in your backbone :rolleyes:

The disservice we do is to summit our young men & women to anymore World Policing in a grand Nation Building scheme built entirely on lies.

Our troops acted wonderfully. They completed the mission that Congress allowed which was... Go into Iraq and search out WMD's... (was none). Go into Iraq and take out their Leader Saddam Hussein... (did that... he's dead).

Now why would it be that after "freeing" these people from a dictator the indigenous people themselves shouldn't have the responsibility to set up and run their own country? They should. What we're over there trying to do now is set up yet another Shah of Iran US puppet government. That didn't work before in this region... won't work in Iraq if we stay another year or another 10 years.

I ask myself this and you could too... If tomorrow China invaded my country and tried everything to convert my country to a pro Chinese government... when would I stop trying to snipe off Chinese.

The answer is never... and that is the rub.

Respectfully... it's one thing for other countries to embrace an endless or maybe as John McCain has said 100 year occupation of Iraq... as they leave.

It's quite another to be doin' the dieing for something we now know that was started on a series of lies and is now in reality an internal religious Civil War problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeC27beZr7s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtSMyBp0sPA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtCZ-e6L7mY

[BigRob]

The Sunni's walked away from the table and have not returned.

Yes there was a big turnout at the last election... but there is an obvious reason why. It's all about the power grab... not about democracy. In a democracy you agree to go along and respect the election outcomes even if your side looses. That will just NEVER be the case in Iraq.

And democracy isn't always something we like anyway. We pushed for free and open elections with the Palestinians and got Hamas. Now we want to remove what was democratically elected.

Very slippery slope over there... it's way past time to redeploy the heck out of that astronomically expensive quagmire.

I do not know where exactly you get your news, but many of the Sunni's are openly supporting the upcoming elections...

The 2005 elections were a milestone, the fact that the Sunni's did not participate allowed Kurdish groups to gain more power than they otherwise might have, however, many Sunni's are turning away from the violence and towards the electoral process.

From CNN: "At least 80 percent of the Sunnis believe that the battle of the finger is more important, more powerful than the battle of weapons and RPGs," Nadhim said. More than 370 former Sunni insurgents near Balad, 42 miles (68 kilometers) north of Baghdad, recently signed a pledge to stop attacking U.S. and Iraqi security forces.


Obviously there are still kinks to work out and there will be some roadblocks along the way, but hey, if we followed your logic we would never have even arrived at the United States Constitution, since that was not brought into being until 1788. It took us 12 long years of back and forth to figure out our problems after independence, but people kept putting faith in the electoral process, as seems to be the growing trend in Iraq.

I will be the first to tell you that democracy is not always the right path, or move, keep in mind after Hamas the Muslim Brotherhood made large gains in Egypt and we then turned a blind eye to their suppression. That said, this type of thinking came about more so after the Iraq war, and I think the general thinking is that democracy remains the most stable option in Iraq due to the different factions and the almost certainty of a civil war you create by putting only 1 in power.

[Federal Farmer]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Au contraire... so many lies you just can't post em all!

And let's analyze where you've missed the boat. By your own admission, President Bush said "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

Our INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS DID provide him with the estimate he told us about, therefore HE DID NOT LIE.


Not True
Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq

I see you've not been paying attention again. We HAVE found chemical weapons munitions in Iraq, ergo, again, he DID NOT LIE. That's also not counting all of the munitions spirited out of the country on the eve of the invasion by Spetznaz troops, and the convoys taking them across the border into Syria and on to Lebanon where they remain today.


Not True
Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq

You're so far wrong on that one that I'm beginning to wonder if you've researched any of this. From Global Security.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/l-29.htm)
"According to the British dossier Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction released in September 2002, information derived from intelligence were pointing to Iraq having attempted to modify the L-29 jet trainer to allow it to be used as an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) potentially capable of delivering chemical and biological agents over a large area. A CIA analysis cited the L-29 program, noting that these refurbished trainer aircraft are believed to have been modified for delivery of chemical or, more likely, biological warfare agents.

Again, he was informing us of what the intellignece community was telling him. The fact that the intelligence may or may not have been flawed DOES NOT make him a liar.


Not True
Zero Al Qaeda Connection
To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.


You really should read the 9-11 Commission Report. It DETAILS Saddams ties to Al Qaeda, UBL, and other terrorist groups.

Iraqi Ramzi Yousef, the ringleader of the 1993 WTC attacks, entered the US before the attack on an Iraqi passport.

Evidence recovered in Tikrit by US Forces clearly show that Indiana born, Iraqi raised and Al Qaeda member Mr. Abdul Rahman Yasin, who had mixed the explosives for the 1993 WTC attack that killed 6 and injured another 1,042 Americans, had not only been allowed to travel freely in Iraq and visit his father’s home almost daily, but that Saddam gave him sanctuary, a home and a monthly stipend as reward for his role in the attack.

January 5, 2000 – Iraqi VIP facilitator Ahmad Hikmat Shakir was dispatched from Baghdad’s Embassy in Malaysia to meet Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at the airport in Kuala Lampur where he was ‘employed’. He then took them to their hotel where these soon-to-be 9-11 hijackers met with their fellow conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later Shakir went missing until his arrest in Qatar on September 17, 2001, where documents both on his person at the time of his arrest, and located in his apartment in the subsequent investigation indicated that he was not only involved in the 1993 WTC attacks, but also in the 1995 Al Qaeda plan entitled “Operation Bojinka” which was to simultaneously destroy 12 airliners over the Pacific. (Directly ties Saddam to 9-11)

The Czech government maintains the veracity of it’s intelligence that on April 22, 2001, 9-11 terrorist Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi Diplomat/Intelligence Officer Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir al Ani in Prague, a meeting that resulted in his expulsion due to his activities not being compatible with his diplomatic status.

March 11, 2002- Tariq Aziz announces that Saddam has increased the bounties to be paid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers from $10,000.00 to up to $25,000.00

March 13, 2002- Carol Ritter of Knight Ritter, reporting from Gaza City said “In a graduation-style ceremony Wednesday, the families of 22 Palestinians killed fighting Israelis received checks for $10,000 or more, certificates of appreciation and a kiss on each cheek- compliments of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.” She added: “The certificates declared the gift from President Saddam Hussein; the checks were cut at a Gaza branch of the Cairo-Amman bank.”

Between March 11, 2002 when Saddam announced the increase in the “bounty”, and the March 20, 2003 start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 suicide bombers killed 223, and wounded 1,209 people, including 12 Americans.

Following his capture on April 25, 2002 Iraq’s former Ambassador to Turkey and suspected liaison between Iraq and Al Qaeda admitted that he had met with senior Al Qaeda leaders in 1994 at Saddam Hussein’s request.

April 14, 2002, Special Forces teams operating outside Baghdad captured Abu Abbas, the mastermind behing the Achille Lauro hijacking, where he had been living under the protection of Saddam Hussein since 2000.

April 18, 2002, Khala Khadr al Salahat of the ANO surrendered to members of the First MARDIV. The Sunday Times of London quoted a Palestinian source as saying that al Salahat and Nidal had furnished the Libyans with the Semtex used to bring down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, killing all 259 on board (including 189 Americans) and another 11 on the ground

According to the May 21, 2002 report entitled Patterns of Global Terrorism, published by the US State Department, Abu Nidal Organization, Arab Liberation Front, Hamas, Kurdistan Workers’ Party, Muhahedin-e-Khalq Organization, and the PLO all operated offices or bases inside Iraq in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 687.

In testimony before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 31, 2002, former Iraqi nuclear weapons chief Khidir Hamza testified that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States had received training in terrorist tactics at the camp at Salman Pak which included training in assassination, explosives and hijacking. This testimony was corroborated an interview of former Iraqi Captain Sabah Khodada in an October 14, 2001 interview on PBS’s Frontline, in which Khodada, who had worked at Salman Pak stated that the training included kidnapping, hijacking of aircraft, trains, and public buses as well as use and concealment of explosives and suicide operations.

Before killing himself rather than be taken alive by US forces in August of 2002, Abu Nidal had been a guest of Saddam Hussein since at least 1999. Nidal, was responsible for attacks in at least 20 countries dating back to the early 1970’s, killing 407 people and wounding another 788.

The October 2002 assassination of US diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman Jordan was arranged by Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the former director of Al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan, who had fled to Iraq after being wounded during the fall of the Taliban and recovered from his injuries before starting an Ansar al Islam terrorist training camp in Northern Iraq.

The November 14, 2002 edition of the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper, which was published by none other than Uday Hussein, published it’s “List of Honor” in which it listed the names and titles of 600 leading Iraqis including “Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, Intelligence Officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama Bin Laden group at the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan.” Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod was the Iraqi Ambassador to Islamabad in November of 2002. This edition of the paper was found in Baghdad by Federal Court of Appeals Judge Gilbert S. Merritt while assisting in the rebuilding of the Iraqi legal system, and noted in an article in the June 25 edition of the Tennessean that two of his Iraqi associates remembered Iraqi Secret Police going to great lengths to remove the publication from newsstands and homes as it was feared that it could be used as evidence of ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda following the 9-11 attacks.

February 13, 2003 – The government of the Philippines expels Hisham al Hussein, the Second Secretary at the Iraqi Embassy in Manila after discovering through his cell phone records that he had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, the leaders of Abu Sayyaf immediately before and shortly after their Al Qaeda sponsored group attack in Zamboanga City which resulted in the deaths of two Filipinos and US Special Forces SFC Mark Wayne Jackson.

Manhattan Federal Judge, Harold Baer (a Clinton appointee) has held that Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and others to pay the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas, who were killed in the 9-11 WTC terrorist attack, $104 Million dollars after hearing evidence “satisfactory to the court” that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and a Federal Judgment has been secured against them.
----------------------------------------------------

As for the rest of your assinine double-talk, the President repeatedly reported what the intelligence agencies were telling him, that DOES NOT make him a liar any more than you repeating what someone tells you, that turns out to be incorrect, makes YOU a liar.

[The Scotsman]

Hi Farmer - you cite in your post above a document from Global Security in which you reference the UK document about WMD published in September 2002. Whilst this may not be widely known outside the UK this document was discredited, it was produced by the press secretary of Tony Blair one Alistair Campbel and is basically regarded as a load of bollox. The point being that they knew the information was being manipulated and that by selling such information to the public as being fact they were in essence lying - although since they distanced themselves from the authors they have "deniability"

[The Scotsman]

Hi Top Gun - I take your points on board and indeed in most cases I agree with you that troops are being used in a cavalier fashion by your and our governments, unfortunately this has been an issue with soldiers since soldiering began; its a part of life soldiers know it and accept it. As long as a squaddie is given decent kit, 3 squares a day and a good NCO he'll fight all day for you and let you bum smokes off him!

The issue is not history upon which we pretty much agree on - its the future and the security of the USA/UK; frankly the Northern Hemisphere if you want to be overly dramatic! You started the fight you've opened pandora's box its all well and good knowing that only hope is left in but you've got to get all the other garbage back in the box. Its a nasty job and its a costly job but if you want a secure future then its got to be done otherwise any terrorist organisation or tinpot little country will as the Vietnamese understood all you have to do is hold out for a few years and they'll bugger off with their tails between their legs!

Those politicians looking for an easy out are deluding themselves and the American people if they think pulling the troops out now is going to be the panacea its a short term fix and it'll come back at you in spades!

[pocketfullofshells]

Hi Farmer - you cite in your post above a document from Global Security in which you reference the UK document about WMD published in September 2002. Whilst this may not be widely known outside the UK this document was discredited, it was produced by the press secretary of Tony Blair one Alistair Campbell and is basically regarded as a load of bollox. The point being that they knew the information was being manipulated and that by selling such information to the public as being fact they were in essence lying - although since they distanced themselves from the authors they have "deniability"

you have anything that shows that? I just ask because that while I know it was shot down basically as wrong, I just never saw any good evidence on it. I do recall that the video of a plane to show the world evidence why Powell was really old footage from pre gulf war. Somthing would be fine if said, like this, taken from before 91, but it was left for people to belive that it was recent footage and evidence.

[Federal Farmer]

Hi Farmer - you cite in your post above a document from Global Security in which you reference the UK document about WMD published in September 2002. Whilst this may not be widely known outside the UK this document was discredited, it was produced by the press secretary of Tony Blair one Alistair Campbel and is basically regarded as a load of bollox. The point being that they knew the information was being manipulated and that by selling such information to the public as being fact they were in essence lying - although since they distanced themselves from the authors they have "deniability"

Hi Scotsman.

As to whether it has, since the beginning of hostilities, been discredited is a matter of complete inconsequence, as it was believed to be credible before the beginnings of hostilities, and as such, there was no lie by President Bush.

This continues to be the main source of friction in this discussion. The fact that some of the intelligence proved to be faulty AFTER the invasion has no effect on the judgements made that led to the invasion, because in order for anything the President said to be a "lie", one must first PROVE that he knowingly misled, or sought to mislead, and nobody has been able to produce any evidence to that end.

Thank you for your imput, and hoist a Guiness for me when you go to the pub.

[Bunz]

As to whether it has, since the beginning of hostilities, been discredited is a matter of complete inconsequence, as it was believed to be credible before the beginnings of hostilities, and as such, there was no lie by President Bush.
It certainly does have consequence today. Whether Bush lied or not matters little when considering the fiasco his policy created. Also, ignoring contradictory evidence, twisting numbers and having zero humint sources that were reliable and approving a very poorly planned war. He certainly misled the American people. No question.

This continues to be the main source of friction in this discussion. The fact that some of the intelligence proved to be faulty AFTER the invasion has no effect on the judgements made that led to the invasion, because in order for anything the President said to be a "lie", one must first PROVE that he knowingly misled, or sought to mislead, and nobody has been able to produce any evidence to that end.
I think the judgement calls that were made have turned out to be very detrimental to America. There was zero plan for the day after the statue came down. Not enough troops, an out of work Iraqi army, wishful thinking and wet ears from the begining make for a situation with currently no military end in sight. I fully support long term bases. But this cannot go on forever. We can talk about the surge working to a point, but there was a big blast yesterday. Biggest in a month or two. Tragic, but that situation between the Iraqs is fragile at best.

[The Scotsman]

Thank you for your imput, and hoist a Guiness for me when you go to the pub......hate the stuff, my favorite is an Indian beer called Cobra..you get that in the US? ...anyway, thanks for the thought and I certainly will be hoisting some beers albeit not Guiness :eek: :D

Just returning to some of your points, Bunz makes a very valid point in that both the UK and US intelligence services had no CREDITABLE agents in place in Iraq - I've stressed the word creditable because the few sources they had and were subsequently cited were known to be unreliable and, certainly in the UK, evidence from those sources were given more weight than the intelligence services said should be given. Remember that those countries with traditional ties to Iraq were all saying the opposite to what the UK/US were saying! France and Germany where all saying that there was nothing of interest there and they should know because they traditionally supplied Saddam with his Chemical Weapons in the first place!

To some extent you are right when you allow the politicians their deniability. Various “sources” were saying that there was evidence of munitions in Iraq but these people where either not in an authoritative position and were passing on rumour or hearsay or plain made it up as happened in most cases to satisfy information requests. The problem, certainly in the UK, was that a case had to be put to the people to convince them that going to war was the right thing to do. The Government produced this dossier purporting to prove their case, however, it is now generally accepted that it made up of fragments of information tailored and manipulated to prove evidence existed. You will no doubt remember the debacle and white washed report into the death of Dr. Paul Kelly and the journalist Andrew Gilligan and the "sexed-up" dossier. This report was presented to the people and Parliament and was in effect a fabrication or at best a distortion of reality as no caveats appeared explaining the lack of quality of the information or indeed the provenance of that information. It transpired that undue weight was given to the more salacious information rather than building up an honest assessment.

Thus technically you are right that the politicians had their deniability and could legitimately point to the intelligence services as being at fault for their failures in intelligence gathering and intelligence processing.

All a game isn't it "I'm all right jack screw the rest" thousands of squaddies and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civvies toasted .... gotta love them politicians ;)

[Federal Farmer]

Bunz, Scotsman, there is not doubt in anyones mind that errors were made, both before, during, and after the invasion, but none of it gives any indication of an intentional effort by anyone in any position of authority to deceive the American people, ergo, there was no lie.

Lack of humint on the ground in Iraq. The blame for that lies squarely with Saddam himself. The UN forces that were in place following the Gulf War were doing the best they could to find a needle in a stack of needles, but with Saddam playing "whack-a-mole" with them every time they turned around, it's his own damned fault. All the idiot had to do was comply with the terms of his surrender, and we'd have been out of there years ago, and he'd still be alive and running Iraq.

I can still recall the moment I KNEW that we were going to have to send troops back into Iraq. When I saw the video of the UN inspectors who had turning up at one of his "Presidential palaces" to conduct a search, and the guards refused to allow them in through the front gate, while a convoy of trucks was being spirited out the back gate, and the guards refused to allow them to leave to go to the back gate to inspect the convoy, I turned to my wife and told her "well, that's it, now we're going to have to send the troops in to take Saddam out".

Bunz,

You're still holding on to the myth of "an exit strategy", but you've failed to consider that, in war, there has NEVER been an "exit strategy", by any country, other than victory. Too few troops? By whose measure? When the vast majority of commanders on the ground are telling the Chain of Command that they have enough troops for their mission, who is to say differently? When the mission changed after it became apparent that they Iraqi's weren't going to get their stuff in one bag as quickly as expected, and when it became apparent that the fight against the insurgency wasn't going as well as expected, they asked for more troops, and they got them. The other issue that we've faced in Iraq that is different than in any other war we've fought in recent memory is the number of non-Iraqi insurgents that have been pouring across the border into Iraq.

The fact is that the vast majority of insurgents that we've been fighting for the past 3 years aren't even Iraqis at all, so put that into a historical perspective for a moment and ask yourself what would have happened if, following WWII, the Soviets had been sending "insurgents" into West Germany to mess with us?

[The Scotsman]

Bunz, Scotsman, there is not doubt in anyones mind that errors were made, both before, during, and after the invasion, but none of it gives any indication of an intentional effort by anyone in any position of authority to deceive the American people, ergo, there was no lie.

Well you are lucky Farmer because our politicians did lie to us. I find that odd though as you yourself cited earlier that the UK Government produced a Dossier (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/iraqdossier.pdf)put forward at Parliament and to the UK people upon which they based their argument to go to war. One would have assumed since Bush and Blair and the joint intelligence communities worked so closely together any such lie, error or "misinterpretation" would have been cleared prior to publication as the consequences would influence both the UK/US population!

One of the central tenents, for example, was a claim made in that Dossier about WMD and the capabilities of the Iraqis......

It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

Excerpt from Tony Blairs speech to Parliament (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1727.asp)

This claim is supposed to have been asserted by the Intelligence Service MI6 via the Joint Intelligence Committee......

It became clear that Scarlett had worked closely with Alastair Campbell, then the Prime Minister's Director of Communications and Strategy, on the controversial dossier, with Campbell making drafting suggestions which the inquiry found may have "subconsciously influenced" Scarlett and the JIC. This influence may have had deleterious effects on the quality of the assessments presented in the dossier. For instance, the Intelligence and Security Committee made several criticisms in their report "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction — Intelligence and Assessments":

(Hutton Enquiry)

And finally a quote from Sir John McLeod Scarlett, KCMG, OBE who was head of the British Secret Intelligence Service and Chairman of the JIC at the time.

"As the 45 minutes claim was new to its readers, the context of the intelligence and any assessment needed to be explained. The fact that it was assessed to refer to battlefield chemical and biological munitions and their movement on the battlefield, not to any other form of chemical or biological attack, should have been highlighted in the dossier. The omission of the context and assessment allowed speculation as to its exact meaning. This was unhelpful to an understanding of this issue."

The UK and US intelligence communities collaborated on the production of that document and indeed was used in whole or in part by President Bush as part of his arguments to the US people.

If lie is too strong a word try deception instead!

[Federal Farmer]

Hi Scotsman,

Again, I think we're coming at this from different angles, which is probably where the disconnect is coming in. As per the Iraqi UAV program, it is a known fact that before, during and after the Gulf War, Saddam did attempt to develop a RPV/UAV program, using both Mig-21's and L-29's. The Mig-21 program, by Iraqi admission was originally intended to to be used as a delivery platform for WMD's. Following the failure of the Mig-21 program, and starting in 1995, the Iraqis attempted to modify their L-29's into RPV's, in complete violation of the terms of surrender following Desert Storm. The fact that nobody has been able to satisfactorily ascertain as to whether it was their intention to use the L-29's as a WMD delivery platform or not is immaterial, as Saddam had already demonstrated a desire to develop an RPV/UAV for that purpose in the Mig-21 program.

Combined will all of the egregious examples of Saddam refusing to comply with UN mandates, his numerous violations of the terms of his surrender, including throwing the UN inspectors out of the country, repeatedly, his blatant support for, and financing of, terrorist groups including Al Qaeda, is it any wonder that it wasn't that much of a stretch for both your, and my countries intelligence communities to believe almost anything that came down the pike, especially when it concerns WMD's? After all, he did have a provable history of using them, not only on his enemies in the Iran/Iraq war, but on his own people! Also, the Duelfer report verifies that Saddam was efforting the revival of his WMD program, as well as working, albeit slowly, towards reconstituting his nuclear programs, primarily with a focus on tactical ballistic missiles.

It's also quite possible that I'm the one with blinders on, having served in the military, and having dealt with "intelligence" failures before. The one thing that, and I believe I've stated this before, we knew was the about half of the intel we got was going to be flat out wrong, or outdated, so we constantly factored in for that. Also, knowing this, we automatically allowed for a "worst case scenario", preferring to believe the worst and not have it come to pass, rather than choosing to plan for the best, and get killed when the worst came to pass. To say that we "erred on the side of caution" is an understatement of BIBLICAL proportions, and given the history of Saddam, I believe that this is what happened in both of our governments. While it's regrettable to have to say "oops, we messed up" for invading Iraq based on faulty information, it's a lot less costly, at least in American and British lives, to have to do that than to wake up one morning and have WMD's going off all over both or our countries and have to be discussing "WHY DIDN'T YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT" while tens of millions are dead and dying.

[The Scotsman]

It's also quite possible that I'm the one with blinders on, having served in the military, and having dealt with "intelligence" failures before. The one thing that, and I believe I've stated this before, we knew was the about half of the intel we got was going to be flat out wrong, or outdated, so we constantly factored in for that. Also, knowing this, we automatically allowed for a "worst case scenario", preferring to believe the worst and not have it come to pass, rather than choosing to plan for the best, and get killed when the worst came to pass. To say that we "erred on the side of caution" is an understatement of BIBLICAL proportions, and given the history of Saddam, I believe that this is what happened in both of our governments. While it's regrettable to have to say "oops, we messed up" for invading Iraq based on faulty information, it's a lot less costly, at least in American and British lives, to have to do that than to wake up one morning and have WMD's going off all over both or our countries and have to be discussing "WHY DIDN'T YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT" while tens of millions are dead and dying.

Hi Fed - I did my bit for Queen and Country too - and its not being blinkered mate its your belief and you've got to be respected for that otherwise you start questioning your motives and actions and man when you do that it sucks!! Theres so much that's wrong with this conflict its beyond belief.

Let's let history judge the rights and wrongs of our illustrious leaders and either damn them or laud them.

Oh yeah....military intelligence... the original oxymoron! :rolleyes:;)

[pocketfullofshells]

Hi Scotsman,
While it's regrettable to have to say "oops, we messed up" for invading Iraq based on faulty information, it's a lot less costly, at least in American and British lives, to have to do that than to wake up one morning and have WMD's going off all over both or our countries and have to be discussing "WHY DIDN'T YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT" while tens of millions are dead and dying.

Its also Regrettable to say that oops the evidence suggested we where wrong, and we rushed in anyway, the situation spun out of control, and now tens of millions are dead because of it. Our misstake of Iraq, may very well be a reason Iran gets the bomb ( if they in fact are trying to get one, and I think that is a reasonable view, but not a given) It could aslo be that Sr. Al Queda leadship is able to the the Distraction, or new recriuits and contacts to lunch its next Major attack. So while the idea of better safe the sorry sounds good, sometimes it is in fact the reason we are not safe and end up sorry. The Situation as it stood at the start of the war was UN Inspecters back in Iraq, most of the North and South parts of Iraq under UN protection from the air, and no clear or even what I would have called actionable intel that was at least given publicly to this point, to justify such actions.

Also it seems that they did not even factor in Regional power shifts and issue , odd given that claimed Iraq was going to change the middle east into some Democracy or some bull. Democracy is nice. but its for when the people call for it, not for when we tell them they want it. Many in the middle east may not like there governments, but that does not mean they want what we have, or what a few who came to us wanted. That said anyone who knew half a thing about the middle east knew Iran was going to have fingerprints all over Iraq , gaining power, and in a worst case Scenario that I believed at least plausible though not likely, actualy moving its troops in to the South or Iraq, taking its oil Fields and "saving is Shia brothers" from the US and Saddam.
This situation never really became likely as Iraq fell so fast and of course no WND was used to slow and Sap the willpower of the US quickly enough where it may be willing to pull out. In this regard has it actuly happened, Bush had already set the seeds for a massive backlash in the US with its talk that made it sound like a walk in the park....To me the retoric of that suggested that they did not realy think he would US WMD, or where just woefuly ignorant ..or the combo of them. Fact is how it is going now, is far better then what I had in mind as a worse case going in....bu far from the picture they tried to paint for the American Public.


I know I had a point in there someplace, I hope I actuly hit it, as I forget what it was going to be :) lol

[Federal Farmer]

Its also Regrettable to say that oops the evidence suggested we where wrong, and we rushed in anyway, the situation spun out of control, and now tens of millions are dead because of it.

I think you need to recheck your figures. Even the most Liberal estimates out there, and believe me when I say Liberal, because they pulled those numbers right out of their fourth point of contact, is just over 1 million. The Lancet survey back in June of '06 listed just over 650,000 "excessive deaths" due to the war, and even that survey has been widely disputed. The low ball number is from the Iraqi Health Ministry, and it listed just over 400,000 "excessive" deaths due to the war.

Our misstake of Iraq, may very well be a reason Iran gets the bomb ( if they in fact are trying to get one, and I think that is a reasonable view, but not a given)

Iran has been trying to acquire a nuclear capability since the days of the Shah, it's nothing new. Just about everybody wants membership in the "nuclear club" while the original members are working as hard as they can to shut the damned thing down! Frankly, IMNSHO, in this day and age, anybody wanting membership in the "nuclear club" is suffering from a major case of "penis envy".

It could aslo be that Sr. Al Queda leadship is able to the the Distraction, or new recriuits and contacts to lunch its next Major attack.

"Lunch" it's next major attack? What, are they going to hit us with Happy Meals?:eek: Sorry, couldn't help it.;) Anyway, Al Qaeda is going to do what Al Qaeda wants to do as long as they can do it, and maintain "popular support", just like Baader Meinhoff and all of the other terrorist groups did in Germany, and around the world, in the 60's and 70's. That's what they do, and Europe paid the price for ignoring them in the hopes that they'd just go away. Some things you have to deal with, NOW, or it'll be far more costly in the long run.

So while the idea of better safe the sorry sounds good, sometimes it is in fact the reason we are not safe and end up sorry.

Nobody with at least 3 active brain cells can argue that point, but that's the rub isn't it. Do you DO something and hope you're right, or do you do NOTHING and hope you're right. It depends on what the perceived consequences of each of those possibilities is, and in the case of Saddam, and to paraphrase Dennis Miller, he and his sons were just unlucky enough to draw the a$$hole ticket in the Wonka drawing. Like I said before, too bad, so sad, it sucks to be them.

The Situation as it stood at the start of the war was UN Inspecters back in Iraq, most of the North and South parts of Iraq under UN protection from the air, and no clear or even what I would have called actionable intel that was at least given publicly to this point, to justify such actions.

OK, let's look at that for a moment. You're saying that there was no actionable intel, but you're saying that in hindsight, and no insult intended here, and you're saying it with, from what I've gathered, absolutely no formal training in intel analysis. Again, maybe that's where I have the blinders on, but I was trained to look at raw intel and to have to make a decision on how to use it, and from the perspective of that training, and from looking at Saddams history, I have no doubt that I'd have made the same decision the President did, regrettable as hindsight has now proven it to be.

Also it seems that they did not even factor in Regional power shifts and issue , odd given that claimed Iraq was going to change the middle east into some Democracy or some bull.

Why would they? The mission was based on, admittedly flawed intel, that Saddam was in possession of, and prepared to use, WMD's! When you're facing the potential of tens, if not hundreds of millions of deaths, you move, and you move NOW, and you'll sort out the rest of it IF you live long enough. As far as how Iraqs government will eventually turn out, that's anybodies guess, and only time will tell. Truth be told, nobody in Europe gave us more than 5 years before they predicted that we'd be begging the King to let us "come back home".

Democracy is nice. but its for when the people call for it, not for when we tell them they want it. Many in the middle east may not like there governments, but that does not mean they want what we have, or what a few who came to us wanted. That said anyone who knew half a thing about the middle east knew Iran was going to have fingerprints all over Iraq , gaining power, and in a worst case Scenario that I believed at least plausible though not likely, actualy moving its troops in to the South or Iraq, taking its oil Fields and "saving is Shia brothers" from the US and Saddam.

Which is why we're still there, to make sure that Iran, or anyone else, doesn't do that. Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people, all of them, Shia, Sunni, and Kurd alike, and we are currently there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. Any time they want us to leave, all they have to do is tell us to go, and we're out of there. So far, that has yet to occur, and not for a lack of trying on the part of some of their newly elected representatives.

This situation never really became likely as Iraq fell so fast and of course no WND was used to slow and Sap the willpower of the US quickly enough where it may be willing to pull out. In this regard has it actuly happened, Bush had already set the seeds for a massive backlash in the US with its talk that made it sound like a walk in the park....To me the retoric of that suggested that they did not realy think he would US WMD, or where just woefuly ignorant ..or the combo of them. Fact is how it is going now, is far better then what I had in mind as a worse case going in....bu far from the picture they tried to paint for the American Public.

I'm not sure where this whole notion of "a walk in the park" came from, as I seem to recall the debate on The Hill and horror predictions of tens of thousands of dead US Servicemen from WMD attacks. While there was the hope that the Iraqi people themselves would welcome us, and if you'll recall the initial reaction, they did, I seriously doubt that anyone in a position of authority was counting on a "cake walk" invasion.

I know I had a point in there someplace, I hope I actuly hit it, as I forget what it was going to be :) lol

I guess you did, and I hope that I addressed it.:D

[Federal Farmer]

Hi Fed - I did my bit for Queen and Country too - and its not being blinkered mate its your belief and you've got to be respected for that otherwise you start questioning your motives and actions and man when you do that it sucks!! Theres so much that's wrong with this conflict its beyond belief.

Let's let history judge the rights and wrongs of our illustrious leaders and either damn them or laud them.

Oh yeah....military intelligence... the original oxymoron! :rolleyes:;)

Hi Scotsman.

From a cousin across the pond, and a fellow Vet, thank you for your service, I'll hoist one in your honor tonight!;)

You're right though, when guys like us start questioning things, it tends to get ugly, in a hurry.

As for the rest, I agree, lets allow history to be the judge, because we can sit here for the rest of our lives playing "what if", and never solve a sodding thing.

[Federal Farmer]

Scotsman,

As to all of the things that are AFU with this operation, you've a way with the understatement.

To my way of thinking, the biggest mistake we made was in not establishing the fact that we were the "big dog" in town right from the word go. The time to be "Mr. Nice Guy" is when things have settled down, but when the insurgents killed and hanged our guys from the bridge in Fallujah, I'd have leveled the entire damned city, reduced it to a smoking pile of rubble that resembled the landscape of the moon, and used it as a glaring example of why you don't want to poke the big doggy with the stick.

There was a saying back in my day about winning hearts and minds; When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds WILL follow.

[Bunz]

Bunz, Scotsman, there is not doubt in anyones mind that errors were made, both before, during, and after the invasion, but none of it gives any indication of an intentional effort by anyone in any position of authority to deceive the American people, ergo, there was no lie.
Some of the more glaring statements and policies and beliefs of the Bush Administration in the run up to the war, that were deceptive, mis-leading, inaccurate or flat our lies include...
Saddam had something to do with 9-11
Sadddam/Iraq had operational ties to AlQ
Saddam had an active WMD program
There were vast stockpiles of WMD
The military efforts will be paid for by Iraqi oil
I could go on, but you see where I am going with this.

Lack of humint on the ground in Iraq. The blame for that lies squarely with Saddam himself. The UN forces that were in place following the Gulf War were doing the best they could to find a needle in a stack of needles, but with Saddam playing "whack-a-mole" with them every time they turned around, it's his own damned fault.
Let me get something straight here, the blame for poor intel on the part of the Americans is Saddams fault. I can understand that. Do you expect him to sit idly with spies in his midst? Certainly not. He would do the same thing any other government would do in such a situation. Deal with them quickly and forcefully. In the book I am reading, it mentions the lack of intel in Iraq is part of what you mention in the sense they were afraid of working with the US because of Saddam. But also it mentions how the US failed to protect those assets and foster those relationships. The intelligence failure is based squarely on the intel sources, gatherers, interpretation folks and then ultimately the American policy makers.

All the idiot had to do was comply with the terms of his surrender, and we'd have been out of there years ago, and he'd still be alive and running Iraq.
See this is where I disagree. There is no question the biggest criticism of the Bush 41 administration was in dealing with Iraq when its Army was forced out of Kuwait. Bush 43 was going to make any case to "finish the job". I knew we would be back in Iraq the moment GWB was sworn in.


You're still holding on to the myth of "an exit strategy", but you've failed to consider that, in war, there has NEVER been an "exit strategy", by any country, other than victory.
Exit strategy? Victory?
Your still thinking that there is a US military solution to this fiasco. Saddam is gone, democracy is there, Iraqi security forces trained. What else do you want from the troops? We have no business propping up a rightfully elected democratic government, especially from thier own people. If it were up to me, I say we have 6 or so large permanent bases in iraq, and American troops end thier combat patrols, leaving that to the Iraqis. Been saying it for months.

Too few troops? By whose measure? When the vast majority of commanders on the ground are telling the Chain of Command that they have enough troops for their mission, who is to say differently?
Cheney said in 91 while SecDef that the 400,000 or so troops wasnt enough then to go to Baghdad. Everyone except for the policy makers(specifically Rummy) and Franks said that 130K wasnt enough. They like all other dissenters in the run up to the war, were either, removed, minimized, and discredited through personal attacks.

When the mission changed after it became apparent that they Iraqi's weren't going to get their stuff in one bag as quickly as expected, and when it became apparent that the fight against the insurgency wasn't going as well as expected, they asked for more troops, and they got them.
I assume you are referring to the surge. They got more troops, not many more, but some more. The issue is that tomorrow, or the next day, or next month is the situation can spiral out of hand. Then we need another surge, and so on, where does it end? The American military, especially the Army cannot continue with the deployment schedule it has kept indefinatly.

The other issue that we've faced in Iraq that is different than in any other war we've fought in recent memory is the number of non-Iraqi insurgents that have been pouring across the border into Iraq.
Oh like our buddies the Sauds? Or the Syrians? Or how about our real arch enemy in the region, Iran. Who has been emboldened by the situation in Iraq, we turned them from a nusance, into a full blown regional power. Thanks, Mr President.

The fact is that the vast majority of insurgents that we've been fighting for the past 3 years aren't even Iraqis at all, so put that into a historical perspective for a moment and ask yourself what would have happened if, following WWII, the Soviets had been sending "insurgents" into West Germany to mess with us?
I am going to call BS on your assertion that the vast majority of the insurgents have been foreign. Some yes, but certainly not the vast majority. Unless of course you have a percentage breakdown. Then please do post it for all to read.
Instead of using that example, lets look at the Soviets and Chinese, and the situations in Korea and Vietnam. Where most of the arms came from there and poorly disguised as such. Plus considerable troops in Korea and at least some in Vietnam.

[Libsmasher]

Some of the more glaring statements and policies and beliefs of the Bush Administration in the run up to the war, that were deceptive, mis-leading, inaccurate or flat our lies include...
Saddam had something to do with 9-11
Sadddam/Iraq had operational ties to AlQ
Saddam had an active WMD program
There were vast stockpiles of WMD
The military efforts will be paid for by Iraqi oil
I could go on, but you see where I am going with this.

This mostly a recital of endlessly-repeated appeaser mythology. Provide quotes from credible sources.

[Bunz]

This mostly a recital of endlessly-repeated appeaser mythology. Provide quotes from credible sources.

From Bush himself...
"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

[The Scotsman]

This situation never really became likely as Iraq fell so fast and of course no WND was used to slow and Sap the willpower of the US quickly enough where it may be willing to pull out. In this regard has it actuly happened, Bush had already set the seeds for a massive backlash in the US with its talk that made it sound like a walk in the park.................:D yes you did have a point and its a good one!! Unfortunately a lot of advisors around Bush should have advised him to engage his brain before speaking!

[Federal Farmer]

Some of the more glaring statements and policies and beliefs of the Bush Administration in the run up to the war, that were deceptive, mis-leading, inaccurate or flat our lies include...
Saddam had something to do with 9-11
He did, and I've already posted information that proves this.
Sadddam/Iraq had operational ties to AlQ
He did
Saddam had an active WMD program
He did. Read the Duelfer Report, it's all in there.
There were vast stockpiles of WMD
He did, they are now in Syria and Lebanon.
The military efforts will be paid for by Iraqi oil
They are.
According to Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, since 2003, $50.6 billion spent on reconstruction projects has come from Iraq itself, while the U.S. has spent $47.5 billion. "In short, we used more of their money for reconstruction than ours," Cordesman says. LINK (http://socialistworker.org/2008/05/12/paying-to-be-occupied)
I could go on, but you see where I am going with this.
Yup, right off the deep end.

Let me get something straight here, the blame for poor intel on the part of the Americans is Saddams fault. I can understand that. Do you expect him to sit idly with spies in his midst? <snip>
First you say it was Saddams fault, and then you say it was our fault, which is it?

See this is where I disagree. There is no question the biggest criticism of the Bush 41 administration was in dealing with Iraq when its Army was forced out of Kuwait. Bush 43 was going to make any case to "finish the job". I knew we would be back in Iraq the moment GWB was sworn in.

As I said, I knew it when I saw the video of trucks going out the back gate of one of Saddams palaces while the UN Inpectors were being detained at the front gate. You were a little slow on the uptake, but with you not having served, that much is understandable. What I can't understand is your allowing your antipathy for President Bush (obviously since before he was elected) so color your judgement that you'd automatically assume that he would do what you accuse him of, regardless of the complete lack of evidence to support your assertions.

Exit strategy? Victory?
Your still thinking that there is a US military solution to this fiasco. Saddam is gone, democracy is there, Iraqi security forces trained. What else do you want from the troops? We have no business propping up a rightfully elected democratic government, especially from thier own people. If it were up to me, I say we have 6 or so large permanent bases in iraq, and American troops end thier combat patrols, leaving that to the Iraqis. Been saying it for months.

And I've been trying to tell you that you don't understand the situation on the ground over there. What good is it for us to have bases over there if we're not going to patrol? What good is it for us to remain there at all if we're going to just sit by and allow FOREIGN insurgents (that's the part you keep overlooking, the insurgents are, for the most part, NOT Iraqis) overthrow the legally constituted government of Iraq?

Cheney said in 91 while SecDef that the 400,000 or so troops wasnt enough then to go to Baghdad. Everyone except for the policy makers(specifically Rummy) and Franks said that 130K wasnt enough. They like all other dissenters in the run up to the war, were either, removed, minimized, and discredited through personal attacks.

Well, apparantly 130K WERE enough, as the entire nation of Iraq folded like a cheap suit in just 20 days! Now granted, it wasn't the 100 hours of Desert Storm, but then all we were doing was running them out of Kuwait, this time we were taking them down, HARD.

I assume you are referring to the surge. They got more troops, not many more, but some more. The issue is that tomorrow, or the next day, or next month is the situation can spiral out of hand. Then we need another surge, and so on, where does it end? The American military, especially the Army cannot continue with the deployment schedule it has kept indefinatly.

It's apparant that you haven't been watching much news lately. The fact is that insurgent activity is at it's lowest level since August of 2003 (it