Draginol Draginol

Iraq Study Group blasts Iraqi government

▼

Iraq Study Group blasts Iraqi government

The long awaited report has some surprises

from JoeUser Forums

The Iraq Study Group report is finally out.

It's a bit surprising in a few areas. First, it doesn't suggest that the US needs to exit immediately but rather that over the course of the next year the US should transition to a more supporting role of training Iraqi forces. Then, after that, the troops should come home -- ready or not.

It also advocates talks with Iran and Syria.  James Baker makes the case that the US had regular talks with the Soviet Union for 40 years even though their stated objective was to wipe us out.

But the part that really struck me was the analysis of the Iraqi government. They unanimously concluded that the Iraqi government is just incompetent. So incompetent that they have serious concerns of whether it will be capable -- given any amount of time -- to effectively govern the country. They have good intentions but lack the capability to governm.

I have to say I support everything I've read about the report so far.  To me, this 3 year disaster should have ended 2 years ago.  Our goal was to eliminate the regime of Saddam Hussein. That was accomplished 3 years ago. 

Why are we still there?  It's not our job to make sure Iraq is turned into a Jeffersonian democracy. I get the reaosn they want to. I even support a reasonable effort. But 3 years? If the Iraqis can't get their act together soon, then tough. 

The options for the US aren't merely either a Jeffersonian democracy or a terrorist state. The option isn't even something in between.  We toppled a fairly powerful regime in a matter of weeks with few combat deaths. The US should have a policy of knocking down regimes that support terrorism and represent threats to the United States. It should not be our policy to spend year after year trying to rebuild these countries unless it's demonstratably in our best interest.

This time next year, the troops better start coming home -- or at least out of Iraq.

20,496 views 54 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
The commission was a waste of time and taxpayer money! They (the commission) already stated they were NOT experts in this field! Once again Bahu you make broad sweeping statements without knowing the entire scope of what you're talking about.


Then why did they make the commission in the first place? Because those with expertise on the topic are probably biaised.

A blue ribbon "bi partisan" commission that left one concept out of their intentions... victory.


Victory is impossible. Plain impossible, thanks to the mismanagement of your all-mighty president. That is how they see it.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
ParaTed2k

The way Bush fought this war has precluded VICTORY. To achieve what Bush outlined as VICTORY may have been possible had we sent in troop levels to PREVENT the sectarian violence that is where the vast majority of the attacks originate. We could also have secured the borders and prevented foreign entry into Iraq.

Yesterday CNN had a story that claims that wealthy Sunnis in Saud Arabia are sending money to help buy arms for Sunnis who they support! That is just as bad as Iran and Syria supporting the Shiites.

The conclusion of the Iraq Study Commission that the violence in Iraq can not be resolved without the help of other countries is so true. Bush has refused to talk with Iran and Syria which will insure no real help in Iraq. Israel has objected to including their conflict which was another component of the commission recommendations.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

Regardless of progress so far, and regardless of any opinions of whether or not we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, we have a responsibility to see this through to the end.  We went in and toppled a government.  We tried to introduce a secular democracy into a region that has either only ever known dictatorships, theocracies or various mixes of the two.   To expect the whole thing to magically come together in just a few short years isn't very realistic.  It's a foreign concept being pushed on a nation that still isn't certain that we did them any favors in the first place.

When we go in to topple a government, it becomes our responsibility to stick with it and finish the job we started.  If we have to fix our messes and stick with them through to completion more, perhaps we'd be less inclined to invade other countries in the first place. 

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
When we go in to topple a government, it becomes our responsibility to stick with it and finish the job we started. If we have to fix our messes and stick with them through to completion more, perhaps we'd be less inclined to invade other countries in the first place.


Amen Zoomba. I think you see things the same way that I do.

HOWEVER, there is an aspect of the situation we should consider. What is the great bloodfeast that will happens (let's assume it will happen) is only delayed by the US Army's presence? However, the more the US army stays, the worst the bloodfeast will be.

It's like putting a weight on a spring to prevent it to jump. But the longer/heavier you keep the weight on the string, the higher it will jump when no one will be able to keep it there.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Clearly, Iran already has such a policy.


But "should" they have one, I asked? Their attempt at knocking down Saddam's regime went even worse than ours. Now they're on the verge of being invaded themselves. And they're one of the most unpopular countries around (Link), no major allies. Iran would be far more secure if it was capable of working together with regimes that are threats to it, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, or Ukraine, or Taiwan.

And of course the other angle on whether Iran or America should have this regime knock down policy is that it threatens the lives of many innocent Iranians, Americans, and Israelis. Whether it works or not is not the only thing determining whether it's good policy.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now they're on the verge of being invaded themselves.


How? By whom?

Iran is in position of force right now, as I see it. the US hasn't the military to conquer/control them, EU hasn't either. Russia is their friend..

Maybe Turkey?
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okay, "verge" is overstatement. They are definitely at the top of America's hit list, a bad place to be. We officially rattle our saber at them from time to time — Link. And it just looks like an invasion is likely:
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
The idea of a joint US/Israel invasion of Iran isn't news. If it really happens, it will mark the beggining of the era of usable nuclear weaponry. The though makes me shudders.

But it was before the quagmire of Iraq became 3 time worse. Before the Dems took over the congress.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then why did they make the commission in the first place? Because those with expertise on the topic are probably biaised.
--cikomyr

Yep, it's always best to have people suggesting policy who have no real, well-founded idea about the subject on which they're advising. That's government.
I should have a watchmaker come in and tell me how to plumb or wire my house. I should have a veterinarian recommend methods of laying cement. Maybe a taxi driver to tell me how to hang drywall.

Brand-spankin' new, factory-fresh, weapons made in Iran were recently captured in Iraq. These are the people we're supposed to talk to about stabilizing things there?

We keep pretending this war is just a little trifle that we can afford to abandon rather than win.
We keep playing around here, pretending wars can be fought in a nice, polite, PC way, and pretty much ignoring the larger threat the Islamic Fundies pose.

We'll end up fighting this war here. We all know that in our guts. It's coming.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yep, it's always best to have people suggesting policy who have no real, well-founded idea about the subject on which they're advising. That's government.


Indeed. It would be much better if all decisions were taken by generals. That's called a junta.

I should have a watchmaker come in and tell me how to plumb or wire my house. I should have a veterinarian recommend methods of laying cement. Maybe a taxi driver to tell me how to hang drywall.


Indeed, and all those above should also decide which laws regulates their own fields. That way, doctors could get rid of all those "regulation" that hamper their profits... We are really selfish to ask our elected representative to make those kind of decisions, right?

Brand-spankin' new, factory-fresh, weapons made in Iran were recently captured in Iraq. These are the people we're supposed to talk to about stabilizing things there?


[put link right here]

We keep pretending this war is just a little trifle that we can afford to abandon rather than win.


you can't really afford to win it either.. Since it would probably mean the bancrupcy of the USA...

We'll end up fighting this war here. We all know that in our guts. It's coming.


Indeed. However, you made a sideturn to Iraq, causing the death of hundred thousand innocents in the meantime, just to delay(or accelerate?) the inevitable.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brand-spankin' new, factory-fresh, weapons made in Iran were recently captured in Iraq


Where, link?

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brand-spankin' new, factory-fresh, weapons made in Iran were recently captured in Iraq. These are the people we're supposed to talk to about stabilizing things there?


[put link right here]


You "really" should try to read more!

Link

This is just the first of many!
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brand-spankin' new, factory-fresh, weapons made in Iran were recently captured in Iraq


Where, link?


Same goes for you Lucas. Try reading more.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Indeed. It would be much better if all decisions were taken by generals. That's called a junta.
--cikomyr

It would have been nice if they'd had a couple active military figures, ones who'd actually been recently deployed in Iraq, for example, on the committee. How about one or two people FROM Iraq? Just....people; who'd seen and lived it themselves? That's called fair play. That's called common sense.

Indeed, and all those above should also decide which laws regulates their own fields. That way, doctors could get rid of all those "regulation" that hamper their profits...
---cikomyr

If the 'watchmaker', 'veterinarian' and 'taxi driver' had actually had some lengthy, in depth, personal experience in the things they were advising me on, I might have more confidence in their advice.
I wonder how much time Vernon Jordan and Sandra Day-O'Connor spent in Iraq, getting into the nitty-gritty of the thing?
Vernon would probably have avoided it altogether. To him it likely looks just like a giant sand trap....and golfers always avoid those. Also, I bet it's hard to fit the word "penis" into a discussion about war.

We are really selfish to ask our elected representative to make those kind of decisions, right?
---cikomyr

Oh, was a position on the group an ELECTED position? Hmm....lemme see....no...no. I don't recall seeing that on the ballot. If so, I missed it and didn't vote for anyone on it. So sorry.

[put link right here]
---cikomyr

You "really" should try to read more!

Link

This is just the first of many!
---drmiler

Thanks, drm....looks like they don't know everything. But then, I guess it's just silly of me to expect people with an anti-war bias to pay attention to much beyond what fits into that view, huh? If they didn't see it in the MSM, it didn't happen.
I was stunned to see it on an ABC News website; well...maybe that'll help them believe it? Naaaaaaahhhh....! Just a pie-in-the-sky dreamer, that's me......

you can't really afford to win it either.. Since it would probably mean the bancrupcy of the USA...
---cikomyr

Well, as to bankruptcy, we fought a two-front World War in the wake of a giant economic depression, and came through it pretty well. We need a solid base in the MidEast. There's a war coming that's going to require it. The more people, especially people in power who, for whatever reason (be it thirst for power or simple head-in-the-sand peacenik silliness), share your mindset, the worse it's going to get.

Indeed. However, you made a sideturn to Iraq, causing the death of hundred thousand innocents in the meantime, just to delay(or accelerate?) the inevitable.
--cikomyr

Wow. A hundred thousand innocent deaths.....really? That many? I've seen it numbered at ten thousand (in the opening, first days of war, alone); I've seen it numbered at over two hundred thousand; and I've seen it at half a million or more.
Now it's a hundred thousand.
How many people, utterly innocent people, have died directly at the hands of American soldiers, brutish, monstrous, inhuman terrorists that they are? I wonder.......

How many innocents, either directly or indirectly, have died at the hands of the brave Islamic "Freedom Fighters" who oppose our attempt at installing a secular democracy where once flourished a secular dictatorship? A dictatorship which killed innocent hundreds of thousands in its own name?

I wonder........
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wow. A hundred thousand innocent deaths.....really? That many?


Indeed. the US administration is deliberatly using reduced numbers to keep the public opinion more on their sides.

They don't count:

- Bodies found
- People killed by assassination
- Woundeds that eventually die of their wounds.

and they also do not count the attacks that hasn't killed anyone
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Cikomyr & ColGene: Considering we are already at war with Iran and Syria (by way of them funding, arming and supplying the enemy in Iraq, how would you suggest we deal with them? (hint: pretty please isn't working)
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Until we bring the size of our military into line with deployments we should do NOTHING.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
ColGene:
Until we bring the size of our military into line with deployments we should do NOTHING.
We hear from the Colonel of the "no historic perspective" battalion. Clinton took your advice and did nothing. Yeah, that sure worked. Someone in anoether thread asked me why I think a person can work a job for 15 years, without having 15 years' experience. I told him that if you had the same day for 15 years, you aren't much more proficient at the job than someone who's done it for only a few. ColGene, thank you for being such a great example of my point.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler -- why are you blasting Rightwinger for not reading more? He did read it, he just forgot to post the link. Very good link by the way, I assumed it was going to be rushlimbaugh.com. I was aware that Iran and Saudi Arabia were starting to get involved supporting factions in Iraq, but I didn't know we had proof Iran was arming the Mahdi Army.

How many people, utterly innocent people, have died directly at the hands of American soldiers,


The latest Lancet study estimated 31% of the violent deaths in Iraq were caused by coalition troops. By the error range in that study, that would mean from 140,000 to 280,000 deaths, who knows what percent would be innocent. You know, that number just has to be high unless American air power is causing a lot of deaths. Otherwise every soldier in Iraq would have personally killed one or two people. But even sniper teams sometimes go months without finding a target.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top

May I ask how you arrived at such a specific figure? What is it about 4.5 years that makes you say "This much, and no more!"?

That figure is my personal opinion. Just my "gut" there.  I have never cared in the slighest about the fate of the Iraqi people. I wanted Saddam removed. He's gone. I think it nice that we tried to help the Iraqi people get a new government up but 4+ years  is enough.

Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

Wow. A hundred thousand innocent deaths.....really? That many?


Indeed. the US administration is deliberatly using reduced numbers to keep the public opinion more on their sides.

They don't count:

- Bodies found
- People killed by assassination
- Woundeds that eventually die of their wounds.

and they also do not count the attacks that hasn't killed anyone

Amazing. So according to Cik, any deaths due to tribalism in Iraq are also the fault of the United States too.

How about if we stick to the # of people actually killed by US personnel.  Iraqi adults are -- (Wait for it) adults. They are actually capable of deciding NOT to kill other people.

Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Amazing. So according to Cik, any deaths due to tribalism in Iraq are also the fault of the United States too.


Of course Brad, you know that all death of every cause are the fault of the U.S. If it isn't about shooting and bombing its about what we do to the environment and how we made sure AIDS would get out.

To people who have already decided that the terrrorists are merely victims of the US, logic and reality don't matter anymore. Next thing you know they'll be saying that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job and that the CIA staged the beheading of Nick Berg.... oops, too late.

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler -- why are you blasting Rightwinger for not reading more? He did read it, he just forgot to post the link


You need to try to "comprehend" what you read. I blasted "Cikomyr" not Rightwinger!
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
Amazing. So according to Cik, any deaths due to tribalism in Iraq are also the fault of the United States too.


Indeed, since their death were cause by the removal of the previous authority.

If you elaborate on the number of people that would have died of hunger or disease BECAUSE of Saddam's regime that would have happened between 2003-2007, that would lead us to a figure about 1/3 of the people that were killed by tribalism fighting or coalition troops or terrorist activity.

How about if we stick to the # of people actually killed by US personnel. Iraqi adults are -- (Wait for it) adults. They are actually capable of deciding NOT to kill other people.


It sound so simple when you say it that way. But I'm pretty sure if we went to see these killers, they would say they want to defend themselves against the other side, talking about the people they knew who were killed.

It's a big vicious circle, where every side kills the other because the other side killed some of them. Which calls for more and more blood over time, and no one even dare to lower their arm, for fear of being attack by the other side.

And all started by AlQaeda Sunni agents that began bombing and attacking Shia civilians.

Which were allowed to do so because the whole country was in chaos, with disbanded armed troops disperced everywhere.

You need to try to "comprehend" what you read. I blasted "Cikomyr" not Rightwinger!


Well, that's the way I understood it, no worry

Of course Brad, you know that all death of every cause are the fault of the U.S. If it isn't about shooting and bombing its about what we do to the environment and how we made sure AIDS would get out.


off course, forgive me. I forgot that the U.S. has the well-being of everyone on the planet as one of their most interest. They would absolutely NEVER do any harm to any innocent (foreign) people for their own interest. They are the world-leader of diplomatic action, environnemental protection & the protection of minorities worldwide, ESPECIALLY inside their own country.<

Quit your Tom Clancy delusion, man. U.S. aren't a virgin state, and they fuck the world a lot.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

So in other words, you are a straight old "Blame America" kind of guy.  That's your perogative but you'll have to forgive me if I don't accept your premise.

And since who is to blame for the deaths is irrelevant, there's no point in arguing it.