More Troops or come home?

[gackle]

Originally Posted by ozzy gurl

I'm sorry, but this is incredibly uncalled for. You will most likely insist that this isn't true, but I am reading this comment as your way of saying that you and your beliefs are somehow better than what I believe in.

Ozzy, you're darn right I'm going to insist that this isn't true. You're not my enemy, the terrorists are. We both support our troops, we just disagree on what should be done with them. Do you get this upset when every president, republican or democrat, ends their address with God bless...? Please don't try to read into anything I type - I hope by now that I've shown that I say what I believe. If I want to insult you then I will, but it doesn't accomplish anything. I believe that I am right, you believe that you are right, and hence here we are. Now can we please have an intellectual discussion without being offended?

Two more things...one, I want to apologize for not offering my condolences to you for the loss of your friend in the war. It was insensitive of me to not mention that before and I'm sorry for that. I have not known anybody killed in the war, but I can understand how the loss of a friend could trigger the feelings that you have.
And two, I mentioned at the end of my original post about feeling sorry for the way the country is headed if the democrats win the presidency. To clarify, I really meant scared for our country and my family. I believe most democrats at the federal level underestimate the resolve of the terrorists. It is my opinion that they care more about getting the presidency back than the security of our country. I love my family and am genuinely concerned about our future.

[sweeps]

One of my main concerns is that our armed forces are wearing down physically and mentally. (For example, see today's story: Panel report finds National Guard ill-prepared for disasters, attacks.)

Reportedly we're in Iraq to ensure our national security, right? Well as the months go by it appears we're putting ourselves in a weaker and weaker position. How can a soldier keep up strong morale when he's serving his 3rd tour of duty in Iraq and we're seemingly accomplishing nothing?

[sweeps]

Maybe we could convince the world that we accidentally invaded Iraq and we could just quietly head on back?

Hey, it worked for Switzerland.

[gackle]

I agree, Sweeps, our forces seem to be stretched too thin. I don't know what we would do if both Iran and North Korea all of a sudden required us to send troops. The draft?
Liechtenstein doesn't seem to be trembling at the invasion of the forever neutral Swiss, do they?

[tinapbeana]

Originally Posted by gackle

Tina, are you coming at this from the perspective of what gives us the right to take their WMDs when we have a lot ourselves?

gackle, i'm saying if america is going to say WMDs are bad unilaterially than we should abide by that ourselves. otherwise, let's just say WMDs are bad in the hands of people we don't want to have them.

if terrorism is a threat and we're going to wage a war on it, then it should include all terrorists, including americans who bomb americans on american soil. if it's just foreign terrorists who bomb americans on american soil, then we should say so.

but we don't.

[motherof1child]

It's time for them to take there own action

[jIM_Ohio]

Here's a humorous take on this. Not meant to offend... just meant to provide entertainment.

YouTube - Madtv - Apple I-rack

[thekid]

My take is that the decision to invade Irak was a horrible one. It will be a major burden on US foreign policy for the next generation if not more. It was not done for post 9/11 security reasons. 9/11 provided the administration the opportunity to carry out the invasion, not the reason. I'm not sure of why the administration was so bent on taking down Saddam Hussein's regime, but I suspect it was much more ideological than anything else (I think they firmly believed they could use the US stance as the world's sole superpower to forcefully "democratize" a Middle-Eastern country causing a domino effect of democracy in the region). While achieving this would have been of tremendous benefit to US (and Western) interests, it was really obvious that an invasion would much more lead to an increase in Islamic fundamentalism, hatred of the US and resistance to the US model than anything else.

I think the invasion was one of the worst mistakes made by the US in recent memory and that the US public was made to be fools by an administration that lied and manipulated it (albeit the public -and media- does bear much responsibility for leaving their sense of objective analysis at the door the day those planes hit).

Nonetheless, what is done is done. Leaving now would most probably leave Irak in civil war. The Iranian Shiite regime would most probably help bolster to power a radical Shiite Iraqi government. The US would have (i), in Muslim public opinion, suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the jihadists and (ii) helped create a radical Islamic government allied with Iran in their hatred of the US. This cannot be allowed to happen.

The war was started for absolutely absurd reasons. It's effects are however of very important national security concerns. I believe the US was sucked into a stupid conflict by the Bush administration, but is now stuck with it. The worst thing to do now is pull out. The US is stuck with this. And, this, will last for more than a decade (probably several decades). Thank the Bush administration for the situation.

[JBinKC]

Unfortunately, I am not sure what to do I think the increase in troops proposed by Bush won't help much and unless they are in numbers that suggest the return of the draft. I don't think we can have a chance of winning this war without the return of the draft.

Bush's plan was very poorly thought through and IMO was solely done to potentially enrich his oil lobby and help our economy stay afloat by keeping us supplied with cheap energy for maybe 10-15 years longer. It has nothing to do with terrorism which most people don't understand. If it did it our southern border would not be that easy to cross for an illegal alien and the US wouldn't be that lax in that topic.

Saddam was very effective in keeping the masses in check and it is a culture that just about everyone keeps a submachine gun for protection. It is kind of hard to win with a situation like that.

In the meantime our government keeps chipping away at our constitutional rights to privacy and people like deer in headlights just stand there and accept it.

[th_tan]

Originally Posted by gackle

I agree, Sweeps, our forces seem to be stretched too thin. I don't know what we would do if both Iran and North Korea all of a sudden required us to send troops. The draft?
Liechtenstein doesn't seem to be trembling at the invasion of the forever neutral Swiss, do they?

Well that won't happen, we should send more troops, especially now that britain is pulling a good chunk of their troops out.

[gackle]

Military expert Master Sgt. Jess Johnson said the soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have served unprecedented 3 and 4 tours in this war. He said the toll on the psyche of our soldiers will also be unprecedented as will be demand on the Veterans Administration. Our soldiers are being taxed unlike anything we've seen in history, but the consequences of leaving is handing over a $4.5 trillion funding source for terrorists if they take control of the country. We're in a tough spot no doubt.

I heard an interesting perspective this morning. Whatever one's perspective about the reasons behind the war, our troops liberated the country from a ruthless dictator, the people have successfully elected their own government and written their own constitution which is the most generous one in the Middle East with regard to human rights. It's ironic that the anti-war protestors who care so much about free speech and human rights are so willing split from Iraq and let the people there be at the mercy of the insurgents.

Our soldiers are not ordinary people. It takes someone special to be willing to leave their family for months at a time and subject themselves to the daily trauma over there just so I can get up every morning and live another selfish day as a free American trying to live the American Dream. There are daily flights that bring soldiers back to the States for two weeks of rest and relaxation. They only come into DFW and ATL. For those of you in the metroplex, DFW airport has a program that allows entry into the airport for free (remove your tolltag first) in order to welcome the troops home. I took my 5 year old daughter for the first time last week - she loved it and it was great to see the outpouring of support for these men and women. Each one got a round of applause and cheering from 150 people, on a weekday none-the-less, as they passed through the doors from customs. My daughter wanted to shake hands with them and all were more than willing to accommodate. One selfless soldier even gave her the American flag patch off his soldier. It was very touching. Unfortunately I've heard that ATL does not do this and could not find any info on their airport website either. We'll be back as often as we can because it's the least we can do.

[thekid]

Originally Posted by gackle

Whatever one's perspective about the reasons behind the war, our troops liberated the country from a ruthless dictator, the people have successfully elected their own government and written their own constitution which is the most generous one in the Middle East with regard to human rights.

So, how far up the list of priorities is invading Sudan, Myanmar (Burma), North Korea, Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China and about a dozen other countries for human rights concerns?

Invading Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with protecting a "people" from a "ruthless dictator". Come on! And it can't be used to justify it.

It had nothing to do with WMD either. Run that same list of countries, how many have WMDs? What exact military action is the US taking to counter Iranian and North Korean and Pakistani NUCLEAR WMD?

Iraq was weak, isolated and contained. That is where we should have left it. Instead, this was the reason why it was targeted (if I'm a US unfriendly state, what lesson do I learn? Arm yourself, you will be left alone). The administration picked an easy target to play out their half baked fantasies about bringing US modeled and friendly democratic regimes in the Middle East. The result was the exact opposite and it was very foreseeable that it would be so. The responsibility the Bush administration bears for this incredibly heavy in consequences reckless act is enormous.

I'm not a liberal "peace and love at all cost type". I fully support the engagement in Afghanistan and think the West must protect its interests in the world (I think this is the object of foreign policy no less). However, don't try to sell what will go down in history as a brash, unbaked act of stupidity applauded by a majority of blind (maybe blinded) citizens as an act justifiable by bits of non consequential "reasons" that don't make sense.

Bush created this mess. It was blundering stupidity. However, we can't get out now. He handcuffed our hands. Leaving now would be of very serious adverse consequence to US interests.

[gackle]

Kid, sounds like we both agree that we can't leave Iraq and that the war has been mismanaged. Trying to pick through the emotion in your post, it appears to me that your position is that we didn't invade Iraq because of the atrocities being committed by Saddam Hussein:

Originally Posted by thekid

Invading Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with protecting a "people" from a "ruthless dictator".

but we invaded because we wanted to create a democracy in the Middle East:

Originally Posted by thekid

The administration picked an easy target to play out their half baked fantasies about bringing US modeled and friendly democratic regimes in the Middle East.

So if I have that correct, then you're saying that Bush doesn't care about the people in Iraq, but has some motivation to see them in a democracy. Given that democracies are created for the best interest of the people I fail to see the logic behind your arguement and I'd be interested in understanding it.

Originally Posted by thekid

The result was the exact opposite and it was very foreseeable that it would be so.

What was the evidence that made the current state of the war so foreseeable?

Originally Posted by thekid

I fully support the engagement in Afghanistan

Why do you support Afghanistan and not Iraq? They both freed their people from terrible regimes. In Afganistan women now no longer have to be slaves behind their burkas.

[thekid]

Wars are not fought, thousands of American lives are not sacrificed and billions of dollars are not spent for the sake of safeguarding the civil liberties of one precise foreign people. Otherwise, it would happen oh so much more often and would not be sustainable.

Wars are fought, American lives are sacrificed and billions of dollars are spent for the safeguard of national interests.

The US has major national interests in the Middle East. The Middle East produces alot of oil. If it didn't, we would not care anymore about it than we do about sub-Saharan Africa. Oil is a serious national interest. It's the energy behind much of our economy and lifestyle. Our economy and way of life is dependant on Middle Eastern oil.

The US doesn't have many friends in the Middle East. It has Israel (quite another debate) and a few deals with regional dictators (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan to name a few).

The Bush administration thought that if you remove an unfriendly Middle Eastern dictator and gave the people the power to choose (with some direction), the country would turn into a US friendly democracy. This is why it is perceived that "democracy" in the Middle East is good. Not for the good of the people, for the good of the US.

It was foreseeable that this would not work, because it's basic assumption is that Middle Eastern peoples want a US style civic government and that by the removal of the dictator by US military action, such a government would emerge. The vast majority of the Western world disagreed with this. In fact, it is much more probable that such people would resent US military action on their soil and, if left free, would elect an Islamist government (or that Islamist regimes would push their way in). Who did the Algerians elect (a now militarily banned Islamist party)? Who would the Egyptians elect (in high probability parties deeply allied with the Muslim brotherhood -the movement from which much of Al Quaeda sprawled)? Who would the Pakistanis elect if Musharaf gave them the chance? Who would the very conservative Wahabi majority of Saudi Arabia elect if given the chance? To think that a liberated Iraq would turn pro-US after a military invasion is, at the very least, an incredible gamble against the odds.

Democracy in the Middle East is not a goal in of itself. Protecting US interests is. The invasion was based on naive assumptions which, predictably, turned out to be false.

If you are in the business of "Americanizing" and controlling the Middle East, at least realize what it entails. Be prepared for massive military, monetary and human life commitments for at least a generation. Kinda disappointing to think that some figured it could be done in a year or two or three or four…….

To answer your questions directly:

Originally Posted by gackle

it appears to me that your position is that we didn't invade Iraq because of the atrocities being committed by Saddam Hussein: but we invaded because we wanted to create a democracy in the Middle East:

So if I have that correct, then you're saying that Bush doesn't care about the people in Iraq, but has some motivation to see them in a democracy. Given that democracies are created for the best interest of the people I fail to see the logic behind your arguement and I'd be interested in understanding it.

As stated above, democracies are created so that the will (not necessarily best interest) of the people will be reflected in government. From a US standpoint, this is good if the "will" of the Iraqi people is to establish a US friendly government and bad if it is otherwise. I think Bush thought the former would happen, many others (particularly outside the US at the time) thought otherwise. Events have shown that Bush was wrong.

Originally Posted by gackle

Why do you support Afghanistan and not Iraq? They both freed their people from terrible regimes. In Afganistan women now no longer have to be slaves behind their burkas.

Afghanistan's Taliban are directly linked to the terrorist attacks against the US and other western countries. The country was an unstable medieval mess, being run by religious fanatics and terrorists, most notably Oussama Bin Laden himself. It was a grave danger to the US to allow the situation to continue. Iraq was not. The invasion of Iraq was a messed up social studies project run on bad assumptions.

Rebuilding Afghanistan is more than enough work for the US. We didn't need to invent a much heavier situation in Iraq.

[nanamom]

I've been reading this forum and thinking alot. I am a very patriotic person and tend to support the US position. However on the other hand the troops they are sending in in mid summer will include a young man that I love intensely. My eldest son will be returning to Iraq. He is the father of 4 of the grandkids I love and the husband of a young women I admire and love very much. So as much as I support America I have a hard time saying send more and that has nothing to do with my political views or my opinion on the war.

[gackle]

Okay, I agree with you about the motivations for invading Iraq - securing our national interests with regard to the oil supply that Iraq controls. There was an unstable dictator in control who was constantly challenging the will of the international community and the uncertainty of the situation did not bode well for our national interests. I think freeing the people from Saddam was an additional benefit.

I also agree that invading a foreign country amidst in a region that is generally unfriendly to us is a major risk, but then people who don't take risks are generally not as successful as the people who do. The Islamic countries in that region have a much different culture than ours and an assumption that a carbon copy of our society could be transitioned into theirs is probably faulty.

You do seem to assert certain things about Bush's intentions that only an insider of his circle or himself could really know so I'd like to see your justifications/documentation for these:

Originally Posted by thekid

The Bush administration thought that if you remove an unfriendly Middle Eastern dictator and gave the people the power to choose (with some direction), the country would turn into a US friendly democracy.

and

Originally Posted by thekid

As stated above, democracies are created so that the will (not necessarily best interest) of the people will be reflected in government. From a US standpoint, this is good if the "will" of the Iraqi people is to establish a US friendly government and bad if it is otherwise. I think Bush thought the former would happen, many others (particularly outside the US at the time) thought otherwise. Events have shown that Bush was wrong.

How can you you transition from expressing your opinion on Bush's motivation to stating factually that he was wrong? That seems to be a fallacy to me.

The military does seem to be overextended fighting two fronts, but we seem to agree that we're stuck in it for now.

[cschin4]

We have already won the war. We removed and killed their leader. The question is how long to remain and in what numbers.

[bigsaver]

I firmly believe we will be able to leave Iraq once we can vote Sanjia off of American Idol. Unfortunately, that could be in the next decade.

[culart]

Leaving in between may result horrible results, this should be ended or troops shud be back by at least clear divisioning of areas among the majorities!
it may cold the fire for long!

[PRICEPLUS]

Interesting discussion here. We cannot leave until there is a stable Iraqi Government capable of defending itself and its borders. This war will be going on long after Bush leaves the White House. We cannot turn the Middle East over to crazies. The potential for the start of a far larger and deadlier war is a distinct possibility if we leave precipitously.

We still have bases in Germany and Japan. We are still technically at war with the North Koreans. We have had troops in those countries for dogs years.

Surrender and/or retreat are not viable options. This is an implaccable enemy that will follow us home. All the talk of peace is nice. The reality is we cannot leave because that cost will be too high!