Here’s an understatement:
WASHINGTON Mar 19, 2007 (AP)— President Bush on Monday marked the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq, which has stretched longer with higher costs than the White House ever expected.
Let’s see — over 3200 US soldiers dead, countless Iraqi citizens dead, thousands and thousands wounded, homes and businesses destroyed, families ripped apart, billions in taxpayer dollars wasted, US credibility shattered. Would those be some of the “higher costs than the White House ever expected”?
Not to worry, though. Condi still thinks this war was a super-dee-duper idea, and if we’ll just be patient with the same idiots who couldn’t get it right the first time, everything will be just hunky dory.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earlier Monday staunchly defended going to war but acknowledged the administration likely erred by failing initially to send enough troops to quell the civil strife that followed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Rice said that patience still is required and asserted anew that the Iraqis are making headway in completing the transition toward democracy.
And those big ol’ meanie Democrats better stay out of the game:
She appeared on a host of network morning news shows amid fresh White House warnings against plans by congressional Democrats to pass legislation effectively forcing the withdrawal of troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008.
Yeah, because Condi has it all figured out.
Asked on CBS’s “The Early Show” to say what the administration could have done better, Rice replied, “I don’t know. When we look back over time we will know the answer to that question.” [emphasis mine]
God help us.
What happens if we pull out of Iraq now Kathy?
Did you have a chance to watch NBC’s stories on Iraq that Brian Williams did when he was over there?
Gosh, I don’t know, BL. What happens if we stay, other than the deaths of more of our soldiers who are caught in the middle of a civil war? I suppose if we sent an overwhelming force in or maybe dropped nukes the way some freepers want to do, we might be able to subdue the Iraqi people long enough to get the oil for Exxon bill through the Parliament. Two problems: the Iraqi people have done nothing to deserve being nuked out of existence, and the military — even allowing for all of its “moral waivers” over the past few years — can’t find enough recruits for the overwhelming force. So we’re stuck, sitting ducks for insurgent attacks that we provoked.
We’re doing nothing but fueling more hatred for the US and depleting our military to the point that no one needs to fear us. And the people who are supposed to be running this war pretty much admit they’re clueless. Great results. Just great.
Before I answer your question, maybe you can actually answer mine. So let me ask again, what happens if we pull out now?
I did answer your question. I don’t know. Neither do you. Well, other than our soldiers NOT being sitting ducks in the middle of a civil war that we precipitated.
Fair enough, but let me address some of the “what if’s” we are pondering by addressing the concerns you raised. Let me apologize in advance for the length of this post, but the brevity of your post encourages me to expand on some points that need to be made. All I ask is that you read it with an open mind and think about it. My participation in this blog has been part of opening my mind so please do the same with my ramblings rather than just dismiss them as a “neo-cons” view point.
1. You were concerned for the Iraqi civilians killed in the war. Do you think the sectarian killing will stop if we leave? No. Let me also remind you that the insurgents and terrorists are the ones with the VBIEDs and IEDs that are killing the civilians, not our troops. Also have you forgotten the mass graves that Sadaam filled prior to his departure from office? Or do those civilians not matter? Kathy, the killing will continue and increase ten fold if we leave as the powers struggle to fill a vacuum afterwards, I do know that much. Not to mention what Iran and Syria will do to Iraq if we pull out. Do you think all the Iraqi civilians that are working hard to secure peace on our side will be just allowed to fall back into the population? If you are so concerned for the Iraqi civilians, you should support success in Iraq, and sending our troops home won’t bring success.
2. You are concerned about the oil. Like it or not, oil drives the world’s economy and letting the “evil-doers” have control of large supplies would do an immeasurable amount of damage to our credibility and power in the world. Not to mention give them a huge advantage. Until we find an alternative or our own vast supplies, letting them have it as their center of gravity to wield like a weapon is not an option. “No blood for oil” may sound cool to anti-war protestors but is not a feasible plan. Until then, by a hybrid and hug a tree to make yourself feel better. Better yet, support ethanol, alternative fuels and drilling at home to bridge the gap until the alternatives can become more realistic to help take away the middle-east’s center of gravity (logistically speaking that is).
3. You are concerned about the cost of the war. The emergency funding bill the democrat controlled congress sent to the president had excessive amounts of pork in it to say the least. I guess Pelosi’s promise to run a tight ship in Washington went under the bus the first chance she got to fatten the pockets of her supporters. Something like 30% was added to what Bush asked for to help fatten the pockets of democrat lobbyists. Cost shouldn’t be a factor, but it is. If you are so concerned with fraudulent use of taxpayer funds, you would be better served to look elsewhere if you really want to make an impact. The military cost, even in this war is a fraction of the budget. Even if we cut off all funds and magically recouped the cost of the war, it would hardly scratch the surface of the wasteful spending in the social arena. Or maybe we should just save or money so we can rebuild a city or buildings here in America when more are bombed by the “evil doers”. We can lock it up in a lock box for that rainy day when it comes.
4. If you think the war is a lost cause and senseless to put more time, lives and effort into winning it, then we should take that same logic to our domestic agenda. Crime, drugs, poor education, welfare, social security are a few areas that could be easily painted as unwinnable. You will always have problems in these areas but you don’t just stop fighting. How many cops did we lose in the line of duty last year? How much money did we waste on welfare programs that only kept people reliant on the government teat rather than actually help them? Your logic of it may hurt us if we try to win, so let’s just stop now, doesn’t work in those areas and it doesn’t work on the war in Iraq either.
5. You are concerned about our credibility. Do you think our credibility will improve if we pack up and leave? Did that work in Somalia? Did that work in Vietnam? Didn’t UBL become emboldened by our pullout in Somalia and that helped him gain support and enthusiasm for pulling off the 911 attacks? I am willing to bet UBL knew there would be retaliation for 911, some may argue he didn’t know the scope of the retribution. The only scope he cared about was that he knew he could out last the American will. Also the left has been overly eager to compare this war to Vietnam. There are several comparisons that have proven true. First, political wrangling in both wars has adversely affected the troops on the ground. Second, although the battle is being won militarily it is being lost in the court of public opinion. Both enemy’s knew and know that the weak backbone of the liberals to stand up to anything is their strongest weapon in the war. Just as Ho Chi Minh said “You can kill ten of my men for every one of yours, but I will still win. You can kill one hundred of my soldiers for every one of yours, but I will still win.” Even after U.S. troops pulled out of Vietnam, South Vietnam still held its own. It wasn’t until congress cut off financial support to the RSVN that the VC marched into Saigon. Ho Chi Minh knew that he could easily break the will of the American people. We will not lose the Iraq war in Iraq; we will lose it at home and Washington D.C. Until something else happens that shows Americans why we are fighting this enemy, we will continue to disillusion ourselves. On a side note, we also supported Ho Chi Minh in 1945 against the Japanese and then divided the country after the war, so our track record in picking allies continues to need a little work to say the least.
6. You are concerned about our troops being sitting ducks. Our troops aren’t sitting ducks. Sitting ducks don’t have big weapons and don’t conduct violent raids against the enemy. As we sit here sipping coffee and eating krispy kreme there is platoon of 18-25 year olds killing insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan with precision and violence. And that is a good thing when it comes to winning a war. Sure there are costs, but we are not sitting ducks.
7. You also expressed concern for my own well being as a soldier and I appreciate that. But I and many other troops are more concerned about the well being of my family, kids, and country than we are for ourselves. Troops understand that pulling out of Iraq now will only put our families and country in greater harm in the future.
8. You are probably thinking that all these points are great but they have nothing to do with the terrorists that are actually targeting America. Wrong again. We can fight them in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Iran, Syria or somewhere else. But they will continue to try to attack us and we can choose to fight them on their soil or on ours. By pulling our troops out of Iraq we will effectively choose to fight them on our soil. You may also be thinking “Bush lied, he’s evil, and we shouldn’t be in Iraq anyway.” Tough. Get over it; we are there now we have to deal with it. You can wish it never happened, but it did. Wish in one hand and shit in the other and tell me which one fills up first. Plus if you blame Bush you will have to blame 99% of the politicians that have been in office for the last 15 years. Most of them thought that exactly what Bush did in 2003 was the right thing. Sure Bush made the decision, at least he has the will to follow through and finish the job which must be finished.
9. Finally, no matter how many times the left says “support the troops, not the war” it will never ring true. Sure the troops understand you aren’t rooting for the bad guys directly; however most troops do understand that merely means you naively do not wish ill will upon them and that by saying that phrase liberals can feel good about their anti-war stance and sleep peaceable at night. The fact is that most troops understand that the more that phrase is uttered, their job gets harder. It gets harder because the enemy reads the same news and headlines. They check the internet and may even read “Birmingham Blues” to get a pulse for how the war is going on American soil. Anti-war slogans and propaganda only prolongs the war by strengthening the enemy’s belief that they can break the will of the American people. Did you ever read the reports that the resolve of the AQ in Iraq was weakening? I thought not. They were out there, but they didn’t make the headlines. Intercepted communications have shown that the enemy’s will is also suffering. You won’t see those headlines because they aren’t as sexy and they don’t allow people to protest in Iran or places like that to help quantify the anti-war sentiment among our enemy’s supporters. If you really want to help, why don’t you come up with another phrase like “Support the troops, win the war so we can get our troops home”. I am sure the creative liberals in Hollywood can come up with something catchy. Until then liberals need to strengthen their will and see the harm their “lively debate” is doing to troops in the field. Yes more troops and civilians will die if we stay in Iraq, but it is a fraction of the cost if we pull out now. That is what will happen.
Let me summarize:
1 – 7: War good, Democrats bad.
8: We’re fighting for your freedom, so don’t you dare use it.
Thanks. Got it.
Wow, good points. Unfortunately they sound like the Vietnam debate, circa 1970-72, with the terr’ist boogeyman thrown in. Vietnam, as you’ll recall, is the one that ended in “peace with honor”.
The sooner we get to that point with Iraq, the better for our troops, for our military as a whole, and for the nation.
No amount of apples-to-oranges comparisons, logical fallacies, or strawman arguments will change that fact.
Great comebacks from the both of you. Speaking in generalities and not actually debating the point is a great method when you are wrong. Thanks for proving my case. I remember that form of debate on the playground, the old nuh uh vs. uh uh tactic). I bet if I said 1 + 1 = 2, your counter point would be, “no way, or yeah but war is bad and its all about oil and evil Bush, so there) I actually expected more out of Kathy. Neither one of you actually descrived how pulling out would make things better and I don’t expect you to, because it won’t make things better.
Maybe some intellectual honesty on your side of the debate will help you come around. Until you realize that this is a war of wills, you will continue to chant your catchy slogans and blame Bush and republicans for everything and naively think we can just ignore the bad guys and hope they go away.
Maybe if Bush and his administration were to champion your liberal social causes you would support him and the nation. But until then, go ahead and close the blinds and ignore the facts.
BL, writing a dissertation does not equal intellectual honesty. Here’s some for you: Congress is not advocating pulling out of Iraq right now. Congress is advocating a timetable for withdrawal based on certain conditions. To pitch a fit about that is to acknowledge what many of us on the left side of the spectrum suspect — for George W. Bush, perpetual war is the ideal condition.
Now there’s a plan. A timetable on war. I bet Hitler would have loved that back in 45. Just think, congress tells FDR in 41 the war must be over in 1944, with significant progress along the way. So by those measures the Battle of the Buldge would have been Hitler’s defining victory and French would no longer be a language. But that’s ok, this war is different they are just piddly little terrorists that can only manage to explode a few car bombs every now and then. They aren’t a threat. Oh, and I love the perpetual war line is great. Wake up and smell the coffee!!! These guys have been attacking us since the late 70s and will continue to try to find a more spectacular way of attacking us. Shepards have sheep dogs for a reason, to protect them from the wolves. Wolves, will always be out there and the only thing keeping them from enjoying a leg o lamb is the diligence of the shepard and the sheep dog. Sheep do not like the sheep dogs or shepard, they look scary and disrupt their tranquil pasture setting and grass eating. They would rather happily munch their grass and rome the pasture happily than have to acknowledge the ugly sheep dogs. Yes it is a corny analogy but it stresses the point. Until Miss America’s world peace dream comes true, I have one word for you and your fellow liberal left. Baaaaa.
BL, this discussion is about Iraq, not Afghanistan. Iraq was not a terrorist state. Too bad we’ve done our best to turn it into one while we left Afghanistan to the Taliban and the drug lords.
The comparison to Hitler is ridiculous on its face. The Iraqi people weren’t our enemies; we were supposed to be going in to topple Saddam Hussein. At least that’s what we were told in one of Bush’s many explanations. Already done. The new Iraqi government is supposed to be friendly to the US.
As for a timetable, you of all people should know that when we do leave Iraq, we won’t be able to slip out under cover of darkness. There has to be a plan for withdrawal, and it has to be at least somewhat public.
While you’re saying “baaa” to all the liberals who’ve realized (or who knew from the beginning) what a stupid idea it was to attack Iran, please be sure to include the myriad conservatives who believe the same thing. Their numbers are growing every day, and I doubt it’s the influence of “evil” liberals that has changed their minds.
You still haven’t told me how you define “success” in Iraq. Is it the complete subjugation of the Iraqi people to US interests? If so, don’t hold your breath.
Kathy-
The left’s blind hatred of everything Bush continues to blind you as well. The Hitler comparison was in reference to the left’s great idea of a “timetable”. Setting a BINDING timetable (like the esteemed democraps want to do) to any conflict is ridiculous. All it does it let the enemy know their recipe for victory and is completely stupid for us to do. Success in WWII was defined as the destroying Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, once that was done we had to rebuild those governments. Just like now. Rebuilding those governments took a long time and also cost us lives. So no, the Hitler comment isn’t ridiculous.
As far as I am concerned defining success in Iraq is easy, doing it is hard. When Iraq’s new government can handle the things we are doing then we can begin to pull out. And handover has already began and slowly continues. But the left loves the microwave world and wants things to happen overnight. Setting a binding timeline to that goal would be the dumbest thing we could do. Then the insurgents have to target those key events on the timeline and then they win. If we adjust the timeline and push it back, then the left wins, cause they will say, “look Bush loves perpetual war he never wants it to win because the evil corporations are making all the money on war profiteering.” Either way the U.S. loses. All your timetable does is give the democrats and insurgents another propaganda tool to use. That is why the left is stupid for advocating a recipe. What should this recipe say anyway? What things on it would make the left happy?
Additionally, the political chefs fighting to have the timetable recipe defined are doing it for poilitical purposes only and are not interested in success. Like I said before the two biggest losers if we succeed in Iraq are the enemy and the democrat leaders opposing the war. That is Nancy Pelosi’s biggest nightmare, victory in Iraq.
Democraps? Cute.
BL, liberals are not the ones who chose to attack a country that didn’t attack us. Liberals did not tell the American public that it would be a six-week to six-month engagement. Liberals didn’t mismanage the entire mess. Liberals didn’t abandon the mission in Afghanistan.
I know you want to make everything Nancy Pelosi’s fault, but she hasn’t been in a position to affect policy long enough to be vilified the way you and others on the right want to do. Speaking of liking the microwave approach.
There’s nothing blind about my dislike for Bush and his policies. I started out ready to give him a chance, particularly after 9/11. His actions pushed me, and lots of others like me, to the positions we now hold.
It will likely be a decade or more before the Iraqi government “can handle the things we are doing”. Yes, we rebuilt Japan and Germany, but we weren’t at war with them at the time. Do you really think it’s feasible for us to continue on a war footing for another ten years or more? It’s time to start planning for a pullout of combat troops.
This is the Middle East we’re talking about. Various empires have tried to colonize over the centuries, but they were never ultimately successful. We won’t be either, because it isn’t our land and we have no real understanding of the various cultures there. Yeah, we broke it, and we need to fix it, but we don’t own it.
I agree with your last line, we broke it and we need to fix it. We don’t need to abandon it. Your other arguments are pointless at this time and we don’t need to rehash them whether or not we were right to invade Iraq is irrelevant at this point for two main reasons. First, we are there and can’t change the past. Second, 99% of the politicians were on board in 2003 and therefore we can’t solely blame Bush. Sure he is the primary person, but everyone else jumped on that bandwagon and we can’t just jump ship now or we will be back there in the future.
BL, if we don’t look honestly at the mistakes that were made, we’ll do the same thing again the next time a politician wants to demagogue us into war. “Those who don’t remember history are destined to repeat it” comes to mind.
And, once again, no one is advocating jumping ship now. But we don’t need to be at war with the Iraqi people in order to help fix the mess we made.
Not advocating jumping ship? Are you kidding? Maybe you need to listen a little closer to the Democrat leaders yapping around D.C. right now.