Why does AQ win if we leave Iraq?

Here you sort of sided stepped the facts a little. First, neither the President nor his administration stated that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks on 9/11. This lie has been refuted by the administration more than once. It was suggested that AQ and Iraq were working together by NBC news during a Q&A with the President. He said flatly, no that there was no known connection between the two and that we were going to war with Iraq for other reasons.

The Presidents State of the Union speech after the attack he said anyone that supported the terrorist, or harbored a terrorist would be treated like the terrorist. Both isles applauded this statement. It was a clear message to the world what the Bush doctrine was and how it would be implemented. This was he hated you are with us or you are with the terrorist speech. I say hated because it is hated by everyone that had political reasons for America to fail.

The result of the “with us or against us” speech was that most people that were supporting terrorist around the world stopped supporting terrorist around the world. Well almost everyone. Syria continued to help under the table as did Iran. Iraq on the other hand started a media blitz telling the world that he and his nation was picking up the slack. First by paying the families of homicide bombers twelve hundred dollars for attacks on Israel. Next he supported AQ by providing safe harbor as they were chassed out of Afghanistan then by providing medical treatment to AQ types wounded in Afghanistan under the table. When it was printed in the papers that the number three AQ was recuperating in Sadam’s hospital for VIP’s, the response to that was we started building up to follow through on the Bush doctrine. It was then that the government started to build a case for war in Iraq. Even Iran took five steps back and started giving us help. This was when the WMD crap. It was all to list every thing we could to have total justification to go to war. We did not need any of it we did it just to make the liberals happy because they needed it.

tell me if we run away again then why does aq win.

Al Qaeda may or may not have been in Iraq before the war...but now they are one of the players on the other side. If we unilaterally pull out of Iraq, all of groups fighting against us win.

Did France win during WWII? As a nation, did they do anything towards victory againt the Axis Powers? No... but they were part of the Allies, so they were included in the victory.

There are many groups fighting against a free Iraq. If we surrender, all of the groups can claim victory.

As far as that goes, do you realize that most Arab culture considered Hussein the victor in Desert Storm? Why? Because when the dust settled, it was the US led coalition that left and Hussein was left standing.

Something to think about.

and everyone knew that someone else would have to go in and finish it.

Yup, in fact, I remember telling the guys... "Keep your ruck sack packed, we'll be back". I didn't realize we'd be leaving the job undone for the next generation of soldiers to fight... and the country yawn and get bored with their efforts.

Apparently the Arab world was right, even the US would rather see Hussein stay in Power and turn on their own.

I don't give a shit.

How long were you gone Ted? 6 months? Now our Soldiers are gone 15 months and only home 12 months or less.

Iraq isn't worth it.

FUCK THAT.

"First, neither the President nor his administration stated that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks on 9/11."

Dick Cheny has said it over and over, against the 9/11 report, against the pentagon. To this day he maintains it. When the President is asked who we are fighting in Iraq today, it's not a pure Iraqi insurgency it's AQ.

Fox news got wind of it and ran with it and nobody has looked back since 2003. You tell me did we go into Iraq to rid WMD because there was a terrorist link between Saddam and AQ? Supposed intelligence which proved false says yeah.

"This lie has been refuted by the administration more than once."

If you are so certain. Why don't you do a U-tube search on cheny Iraq AQ see if you can't hear a few statement before the war alluding to it. Do it and tell me you can't because if I can you concede the point to me agreed? What this "lie" was is a clever political trick by Karl Rove to turn your weakness into your strength, no clear intel on an Iraq connection but a deep hatred for AQ by the American people, so make your enemy not only AQ but the Iraqis. It worked, and you know that it worked because the majority of people are following politics as deeply as a person falling asleep on a long flight in coach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RytxVNM0llQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWdq7hg4dLU&mode=related&search=

"tell me if we run away again then why does aq win."

I don't think they do. I don't think anybody wins at all, Iran might think it wins, but thats because they want more influence, but we would be in a stronger position to deal with Iran with a fresh and more deployable military than we are now. Iraqis would win about the same pace as they are now, slow, but sure progress, I still think they are only gonna get the country they want when they are in full control of it and not us stepping on their toes.

"If we unilaterally pull out of Iraq, all of groups fighting against us win."
"There are many groups fighting against a free Iraq. If we surrender, all of the groups can claim victory."

Win what? A shattered Iraq? Give me a break, that is no prize, no victory, certainly no victory you can hold up to the Islamic world and say hey give us your sons and daughters to blow up against Americans. So we can make the world more like Iraq. Give me a fucking break.

We don't lose we leave. I don't see Iraqi's aligning with AQ anymore than they are aligning with us, they are jostling with each other for local power, local control, local legitimacy, and taking the reigns to keep their streets safer. There have to be more jobs in their country then just police, border patrol, security and the army.

The groups fighting are fighting for control, not against the freedom, they are fighting for their own freedom, the freedom to control their own destinies.

"As far as that goes, do you realize that most Arab culture considered Hussein the victor in Desert Storm?"

Oh bullshit. We never left, we just drew down, and Saddam was no victor as evidenced by the continued grip we had on his country, well to this day. Aside from that it was us who was raining down torrential hell on the "highway of death" and the Arab world screaming "bloody murder" and for us to halt the aggression. Saddam was no victor and if anybody ever led him to believe that he was, it was so that he didn't shoot them on sight and try to attack another of his neighbors in the region. Remember he'd attacked Iran and fought the Iran Iraq war and the general consensus was he was planning to invade Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait during Gulf War 1.

The reason Saddam was though to be an intrepid and hero is his launch of Scuds against Israel, and his proclaimed support for the Palestinians. But that's all bullshit and the people who supported him for a while would have a hard time doing so considering the mass graves and other atrocities.

Saddam was no victor after 1990.

"Did France win during WWII? As a nation, did they do anything towards victory againt the Axis Powers? No... but they were part of the Allies, so they were included in the victory."

According to my recollection of history they played on both sides of the fence. Signing an armistice with Hitler in 1940 in order to survive, forming a French Resistance inside the country, and the Free French Forces outside France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_French_Forces

You should remember that before WW2 was WW1, and it was a battle fought largely inside France and Germany and left both devastated. The English on the other hand, aside from aerial bombardment were largely like the United States in that there was not a battlefield like there was in France. Part of the reason the French signed an armistice with Hitler was to prevent the destruction of French society even at the expense of falling under Nazism.

I guess your definition of win would have to be explained to me. They earned their freedom by fighting for it when the conditions proved possible. The resistance was also necessary to provide the allies with intelligence on the Nazis.

I guess only someone who doesn't have a firm grasp of history would concluded that France largely sat out the war, and didn't do anything, didn't make any sacrifices.

Your claim that if we surrendur doesn't apply. We have already "won" the war, we cannot control the country's populace with the troop levels we have available. Turning them over to the Iraqi's themselves, allowing them to provide for their own security, their own governance, that is the only logical solution. The reason we remain is the shot at getting stable oil supplies and cheap oil in the future. Well that's not a gamble thats worth it.

Thanks for ignoring me, Dan! Awesome!

If there was a clear day in sight, where we had the parties together, letting them know, March 10, 2010 we are gone, stable or not, I'd support sticking it out until then as best we could.

But that is now what this is. "Stay the course" "we leave when the job is done" when hardly any progress is being made whatsoever, and it appears that things are only getting worse rather then better, to me that signals we aren't on the right path, that what we are doing is not right.

-When we are mortgaging our own financial future in order to support a state which hasn't demonstrated their willingness to uphold their own promises to each other in Iraq.
-When we are asking our soldiers to spend more time building Iraq than they do with their families.
-When we are prioritizing the security of a nation which may never be secure, leaving that commitment open forever, while we haven't made taking care of our own citizens in the gulf coast a priority as the same level.

While these things go on, I have a hard time, continuing to support endless commitments to future of Iraq. There is no corner to turn, or bend to round, just more car bombs, and people killing each other, more firefights and more death and destruction.

If we had 10 or 100 times the force to apply and subjugate these people, to put down this insurgency it would be different, a matter of time maybe, but we do not. We cannot even maintain the current level. I don't think it's wise to continue to invest in Iraq at this level at the expense of potential and real threats in the world today. Iraq needs to fight and take responsibility for it's own security.

"Thanks for ignoring me, Dan! Awesome!"

I wasn't ignoring you, you just got you post in while I was writing mine. I agree with you that an 18 month commitment is too long, babies are being born and walking and talking before they see their mom or dad, and if the need is so great for a long haul, we need to restructure the military to handle this kind of war. The fact that we cannot or are unwilling to me means we need not.

The bottom line is Iraq has to stand up for itself and on its own. Nobody came into our country during out independence and fought it for us. This maybe be some kind of great ideological struggle. If it turns out to be a fifty year war we certainly can't "win" it forcing troops to stay 15-18-21-24 months in a war zone. That's just insanity and it's wrong.

Gulf war commitments were not short for the most part, but there was a clear action date, as well as a clear beginning of the shuffle home. Most of the troops were out of theater inside of 18 months. The war lasted 100 hours. It's always the post-war that ties everything up.

Thanks. My neighbor's wife came home today at under a year gone and my husband won't be home for a month and a half to two months more if we're lucky (new baby is already walking and doing her thang), so I am a bit pissy today.

"The English on the other hand, aside from aerial bombardment were largely like the United States in that there was not a battlefield like there was in France."

My simple point, not to start world war 3 here Whip, is that on France, in both world wars, the battlefield was fought "inside" that country, on the land. The "Battle of Britain" was largely aerial. Even though the Axis did a hell of a job with the terror tactics of firebombing cities. There was no land invasion of the UK during WW2. There was land invasion in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska during WW2, but nothing on the mainland USA.

"Thanks. My neighbor's wife came home today at under a year gone and my husband won't be home for a month and a half to two months more if we're lucky (new baby is already walking and doing her thang), so I am a bit pissy today."

Hang in there, I hope your husband remains safe and that this is his last deployment to Iraq.

Yeah, I was only there 7 months... but the point is, if we would have been allowed to finish the job then, your husband wouldn't have to be there now.

((((((((( Brandie )))))))))

The job back then was UN sponsored and mandated, remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Not regime change and occupation. You can clearly see why regime change wasn't favored at that time, because it would have involved a messy occupation.

There would have been no coalition if the goal was regime change and removal of Saddam. Just like there was hardly a commitment by the majority of the world for this incursion into Iraq, certainly there may have been some support, but as Colin Powell put it,

"you break it, you own it."

We screwed up this mission and nobody is going to step in now. Nobody except the Iraqis when they step up.

true

Then how come there was so much support for us in Desert Storm... even when many of us WERE in Iraq... preparing to carry out orders to go through Baghdad?

Imagine our shock and awe when we were reading in the papers that there was no plans to remove Hussein.. yet we were on the ground preparing for just that.

"Then how come there was so much support for us in Desert Storm... even when many of us WERE in Iraq... preparing to carry out orders to go through Baghdad?"

The UN mandate was to remove Iraq from Kuwait, in doing so, the military plans were tailored to the goals set forth by the civilian leadership. The version of the master plan that was chosen was to remove the Iraqi army from Kuwait and reduce Saddam's military force to a level unable to launch another invasion.

Had Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons, which he had at the time, and you no doubt remember preparing for their use if you were in the gulf, we would have marched to the end of the Earth to get him. There would have been no terms, no armistice. In fact had the air war not be so successful at utterly destroying the hundreds of tanks on the highway of death and thousands overall, we may very well have continued to proceed into the country deeper than we did.

Taking a city is much harder, more dangerous, and casualty prone than taking an army in an open desert. As you can clearly see, the urban operations in Iraq are yielding scores of dead Iraqi civilians and Iraqi solders/police daily and handfuls of American troops as well. An active and entrenched battle sieging a city would never have happened in Baghdad in 1991 unless Saddam used chemical weapons. They maybe would have surrounded the city but Stromin' Norman would have told Bush Sr, no way on taking the city, unless he wanted 10,000 dead GI's and 250,000 dead Iraqis. Imagine an American president explaining that to America or the rest of the world at the time.

There is always a plan to do something in place, the initial plan to invade Afghanistan was a modified plan of an operation that was going to take place in the future at some time already.

The primary concerns in Gulf war 1 were, securing Saudi Arabia in Desert Shield, Desert Strom was to get Saddam out of Kuwait and prevent him from invading in the future.

The reason that we didn't have a real coalition goal of removing Saddam is
A. Many fewer Arab nations would have supported it,
B. We wouldn't have had a troop strength position to support the Powell doctrine of "use overwhelming force"
C. We would have had to occupy Iraq long enough to get them on their feet. (Read 5-10 years)
D. We would have had much higher American casualties, a mission a war weary public leftover from Vietnam wasn't interested in entertaining.
E. President Bush Sr. was in his first term and seeking re-election. You don't start a 5-10 year war, pre-9/11 world and expect to get re-elected by the American public. See Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Ford.

No Dan, I'm not talking about contingency plans made up in case a mission became necessary, I'm talk about Operation Orders for missions that had been planned and set into motion. Logistical Base Romeo was set up in Southern Iraq specifically to provide logistics for the push into Baghdad.

If we had of done it then, yeah, it would have been long and maybe even turned public opinion against us... however, the job would have been complete (even the UN charter included bringing Hussein to justice... something that was forgotten as soon as that stupid and worthless ceasefire was signed).

Now the US is being blamed for having the nerve to enforce the terms of the ceasefire. Yet another reason ceasefires are a waste of time and lives.

"Now the US is being blamed for having the nerve to enforce the terms of the ceasefire. "

That's not accurate at all. The US was blamed because nobody wanted to rush to war except the US. Bush thought because of the intel they "sexed up" to make it look like Saddam was rebuilding a WMD program, to hand over to the terrorists lol, we needed immediate action and we needed it now.

The UN said no, so we went and unilaterally re-invaded. Sure there were a few nations helping, the British who are like the 51st state, a few gulf nations, who saw a chance to get something from Iraq in a favorable post war or kick Saddam while he was down, Australia and a few other European nations, I won't crap all over the service of other nations, however when we went in this time, US and UK forces constituted 98% of the man power.

It was essentially a US/UK operation. That pissed the world off mildly. Then when there turned up no WMD, and we didn't have the forces to occupy Iraq and fight an insurgency, the price of oil spiked and that also pissed off the world.

The world doesn't trust Bush because they think he is "a cowboy". In many ways his decision making, supports their view. Of course his decisions have largely been right, but the execution of post war has been a disaster and not exactly unforeseen.

You can debate all you want about if it was a good idea to go all the way to Baghdad or not in 1991. I would have to say that in the years following 1991-1995, where Saddam sat unable to do anything or make war, isolated and contained, just like Castro, nobody was complaining about the situation. It wasn't until 1998 when Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors that things started to heat up again.

Sorry I have to disagree with you. I spent over a decade in the service, I spend four years in the US including boot camp. I was shot in the chest and did all my recuperation outside the US and 20 days after I was back to full duty I was in my next fire fight. Oh, by the way, Mr. Carter was president when I joined the Corps I was shot while he was still president. That was not a 6 month tour it was not a year tour while Mr. Carter was president I spent 8 months in the US including three months of boot camp six weeks of training and 10 days leave. I did not get stationed in the US until Mr. Reagan was president and he shipped my happy butt off to Europe for a few years. My daughter was three years old before I got to live with her, this was the last three years before I got out of the military, no wait, I got a 6 month deployment eight months before I got out of the military.

These troops knew the deal when they joined as did I. We do our jobs and get home when we can. During WWII the military was in for the duration meaning that once sent into combat you stayed there till you died, got FUBAR or the war ended. Now these guys get 12 months home! Great it is more than my fathers generation got, and more than I got. In Vietnam troops got one tour in Nam and then home and out of the military. The thing is, our current troops are not drafted and are there because they want to be. Wives dont' like it but they did not sign up.

Paladin: You're hardcore man. Shot in the chest and back in the fight 20 days later.

Your story would impress me if I believed it.

Oh, and FYI, you missed the part where I said *Iraq* isn't worth it.

Sacrifices are to be expected BOTH on the part of the service member and his or her family (YES, the families sacrifice too, yes, we "signed up"), but it is WRONG for our government to abuse that gift of sacrifice and I absolutely believe that is what has happened with the war in Iraq.

Oh yeah, 12 years of Hussein violating the ceasefire agreement was "rushing". Bah!



Guess what, we don't have to play "mother may I" with the UN. Bush Sr is given credit for bringing the Useless UN in on Desert Shield/Storm, but in the end, they became more of a hinderance than an ally.

The thing is, the UN had nothing to do with the Safwan Accords, which became the Ceasefire Agreement of 91. That was signed by the US and Iraq. Yes, the UN ratified the ceasefire, but the UN were never signatories of it.

Of course, we now know why the UN didn't approve of enforcement of the ceasefire... they were enjoying the benefits of Hussein's rape rooms too much. Even though Hussein build all those palaces during the "oil for food" farce... the Useless UN still approved every request for more money from Hussein.

What the western world is blind to is, to the Arab world Hussein won desert storm. Why? Because WE left. Not only that, but the next election, Bush was voted out of office, but Hussein was left standing... do you know what that told the Arab world? It told them that even the American Citizens would rather see Hussein running Iraq than Bush running the US.

The whole ceasefire agreement handed Hussein the victory. Then when we were too spineless to enforce it, Hussein knew he could get away with anything.... and did. In the end, even the UN was bowing down to Hussein's demands.

So, you can sit there and talk about the Useless UN, terrorism, WMD, Desert Storm or anything else. But the fact is, ceasefires are only as good as the willingness of both sides to conform to them, and enforce them. The other fact is, in every case where the US has signed a ceasefire agreement, we have paid dearly.

"I'd like to know when the freakin' Iraqis elected to govern are gonna show up for work. That alone is enough to make me rethink my support for this war."

Agreement of Whip and I. Write it into the history books!

"We need to quit raising pit bulls (wink to dan) and then acting all surpised when they turn around to bite us in the ass."

Very cute, did you bake that yourself?

"Saddam was our lapdog.
Osama was our lapdog."

Ho Chi Min in Vietnam was our lapdog in WW2, only to want independence in Vietnam. Meddling in other countries destinies has bitten us more often than we would readily acknowledge.

Jumping into Iraq in 2003 was probably the right decision if not hasty. What the wrong decisions after that was, delaying the election of a governing body, planning to invest in rebuilding Iraq at all, and planning to occupy it beyond the initial government setup commitment. That should have been the end, "18 months or less", should have been Bush's slogan. If he had done that and Iraq had gone to hell in a hand basket it would have been much less a problem 5 years later than today, Iraq is hell in a hand basket, we have no way out, no way to fix it, and we are half a trillion dollars shorter and 3500 Americans dead, 30,000 permanently wounded because of it.

Iran could still have been sending in troops to help stabilize, Syria too, Saudi Arabia, where are these nations today? Iran can't do anything because we won't let them, Syria has no interest in getting into a cluster fuck at this point, and Saudi Arabia feels little if any effect because the south end of Iraq is largely in the best shape.

"Oh yeah, 12 years of Hussein violating the ceasefire agreement was "rushing". Bah!"

Thats what you say, but troops started moving in 2002, less than a year after 9/11, Americans were under threat of the DC snipers, Anthrax, ORANGE ALERT! All kinds of fear, daily hourly minute "Fox news alerts" of shit that could/would happen.

What has happened in six years inside the United States AQ terrorist wise? Nothing. They have had no follow up attack that succeeded, no game plan for taking us down after swatting the nest. Only being on the run and stirring up shit in other countries.

"The other fact is, in every case where the US has signed a ceasefire agreement, we have paid dearly."

This statement is really telling, revealing what a war hawk you really are Ted.

In Vietnam, we have not been back, and the country seems to be doing just fine finally getting on it's feet.

In Korea, we have a well established border called the DMZ, and no incursions, though a still hostile neighbor to the north, North Korea is largely China and South Korea's problem.

In Japan at the conclusion of WW2, we never were forced to invade and are very strong trade partners. We have also taught and learned much from Japan on the manufacturing front.

Germany, is a peaceful nation today because of the unconditional surrendur and peace treaty signed.

Our own nation, is the most powerful in the world and has been for over 100 years thanks to the unification of our way of life which came about after the civil war, a peace treaty signed in Appomattox Courthouse settled that one.

The revolutionary war, and conclusion of the war of 1812, with the UK, leads today to the strongest alliance between any two nations on Earth right now, the US and UK, and the whole "democracy" thing has spread and allied these nations and allowed them overcome global alliance of tyranny in the past.

I fail to see any merit in your claim that we have paid dearly for any peace treaty or ceasefire agreement we have signed. The fact is it is President Bush using his own "Bush doctrine" who re-initiated hostilities on Iraq, essentially unilaterally entering us into a conflict we cannot manage with forces insufficient to the task in Iraq. Nobody in congress was pushing harder for this war than the administration, nobody in the public was demanding we attack Iraq.

At the time, the hope was we could win this war and have the forces pulled out before the summer because the chemical warfare suits were really hot in a desert during the day. I guess five years later, with no end in sight, only worsening violence, and lack of progress by the people who are more responsible for it than anyone else, the Iraqi's I have no sympathy or measure of extending our commitment for them at all.

Of course I am troubled by the situation and our moral obligation for helping a nation but there is a very clear limit to just how much help we should be providing. There is also a limit to the responsibility our military and our people should feel the need to have for Iraq. We are not forcing their population to choose to be part of the insurgency. They are choosing that each individual at a time against all the efforts of the legitimate government and legitimate controlling authorities.

They are also choosing not to fight for their own freedom, which is not something we can win for them without their participation. The majority of Iraqis are under 40 in that country, and there is no reason their military force could not be three or four or five million strong. Why is it we scarcely hear of more then a few tens or hundreds of thousands of trained troops?

I don't know about Saudi Arabia, but where are Iran and Syria today? In Iraq killing anyone they need to in order to take over when the U.S. surrenders to them.

With your blessing.