The Fruits of Failure in Iraq

OR: Get Ready, Here Come the Casualties

from JoeUser Forums
There are 2 months before the national elections and one of the two main issues is American Foreign Policy, especially as witnessed in Iraq. The Bush Administration notes that since 9/11 we have destroyed the dictatorships in Iraq and Afghanistan and tightened American security to lessen the threat in the United States. I'm not sure how we will know we are safer (regardless of how many times the President tells us to think it) until terrorists are actually caught in some stage of trying to do something. But the situation in Iraq is very visible and unfortunately becoming a very ugly situation.

A few weeks ago before we all went on vacation Moqtada Al Sadr was reportedly inside a mosque in Najaf with his militant brigade which the Defense department said we had killed a little more than 3 million of while sustaining only 3 U.S. casualties, but nevertheless, the main body was inside the mosque and surrounded. Al Sadr WAS a wanted man for being involved in a plan to kill another cleric in 2003. Many neocons on JoeUser were calling for storming the mosque and ending the threat as the ultimate sign of our intentions in dealing with those who opposed us. My own feelings were to lay siege and wait them out as the least bloody and dangerous action.

What the U.S. ended up doing was letting Al Sadr go! That's right, we said, "now taketh thy militia and skidaddle and don't be seen around these parts no more" unless you're running for political office. Now, I can't say I read every article on JU but I don't remember any neocons (and I apologise in advance if you did) ridiculing this action as both wrong and inconsistent with our policy on terrorists. Some may even have hoped that Al Sadr (never true to his word before, but why not believe him now?) would retire to a mosque somewhere, say prayers and just forget about the situation in his country.

That belief would, of course, be wrong.

We had Fallujah surrounded in almost the same manner as Najaf. Negotiations there led to a U.S. withdrawal and relative quiet for a time also. We negotiated and eventually people stopped shooting. Well, at least for a few weeks.

The problem is what "truce" means to a terrorist. Truce means "to reload, to get ready to strike again, this time more violently." Negotiation means "the Americans don't have the will to do the militarily right thing and wipe us out." Relative quiet means "wait until we have more weapons supplies because all we have now is spitballs." Oh sorry, under current U.S. policy, spitballs would be a step up from negotiations.

Many people like to draw parallels between Iraq and Viet Nam. One of the parallels that comes to mind is that we don't know who our enemy is and so, don't know who to shoot.

So, as a service to Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld and all our troops in Iraq, allow me to humbly explain the situation for you. The people who are doing the car-bombings and shooting the rockets at our headquarters and shooting our soldiers don't give a crap about civility. They will lie, kill, lie, kill, and lie some more as long as you think negotiations are the answer. Negotiations are not the answer and responding to terrorism by doing less than taking away all weapons will not work. American soldiers who cannot tell the enemy from the man on the street are not in strategically safe positions and placing troops at risk because a truce is in place is suicidal. When you find terrorists, they must be removed.

Otherwise, the fall is going to be full of reports of more dead. Unnecessary and a testament to the failure of U.S. policy.
politics
10,343 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Since the handover of sovereignty, Iraq now has the final call on things like Al Sadr.

I think it was a mistake to not clear out Fallujah.

I don't think letting Al Sadr go was the right call, but at least we have him out of that mosque now. If he acts up again, we should be able to take him out without damaging a holy site.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

it's what's known in the trade as a 'catastrophic success'.  

i'll be amazed if, at the end of the day (or the next four years), all we've done is turn saddam's iraq into sistani's islamic republic of iraq.   i dont mean to promote my blog (and feel free to remove this sentence and the link once youve seen where it leads...my take on the liberation of najaf link)

SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
I think it would be great to have a established democracy in the Middle East. I just don't think Iraq can do it yet. I think the people in power want to remain in a tryanny leadership, able to do anything. They won't have something like a senate, and as history has proven, Monarchies (no, it's a president, not a king, but still yet) always abuse their power and take out anyone who defies them.

I believe this will be the case in Iraq, but I pray for it to be different. Iraq is going to be like Bosnia, and we'll have troops there for...um...ever?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another excellent, well-thought out and written, and Insightful post, CripE. Like I said before, you keep writing them, I'll keep reading them.

I'm not sure how we will know we are safer (regardless of how many times the President tells us to think it) until terrorists are actually caught in some stage of trying to do something


This is a problem. The thing is, the world of intelligence gathering and analysis is a very secretive world and you don't often get to hear about the successes - only the failures. Just the fact that the government agencies have refocused much of their effort to prevent terrorist acts is enough, I believe, to have stopped some plans from being hatched. And the efforts of the agencies have very likely stopped some plans we've never heard about. The downside to this, though, is growing complacent. We can not afford to fall back into the mindset that it will never happen here. It is a double edged sword, but overall, I do believe that we are safer today.

Many people like to draw parallels between Iraq and Viet Nam. One of the parallels that comes to mind is that we don't know who our enemy is and so, don't know who to shoot.


I think another parallel would be that we have to 'win the hearts and minds' of the common people. This means we have to honor our word. We have stated from the start that we would do our very best to preserve holy sites, hospitals, schools, etc. Unfortunately, this has helped the enemy to develop tactics to use against us. In the case of Najaf, if we had burst in and caused damage, we would have turned more people against us. I'm definetely not happy with the result, but if the Iraqi forces weren't willing to do the storming either, I can't think of a better solution.

I agree that we should NOT negotiate with terrorists. The problem is that we also have to be careful to not create more enemies where they weren't before. Very tough situation and it does place Soldiers in harms way.

I don't have a perfect solution on how to take out the terrorists without making new enemies, but I do know this - the Soldiers that are there are making a difference. They are promoting a positive image and a new way of life. They are helping people in ways that were never imagined before in Iraq. And while that's not the solution, it's a good start.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
I think another parallel would be that we have to 'win the hearts and minds' of the common people. This means we have to honor our word. We have stated from the start that we would do our very best to preserve holy sites, hospitals, schools, etc. Unfortunately, this has helped the enemy to develop tactics to use against us. In the case of Najaf, if we had burst in and caused damage, we would have turned more people against us. I'm definetely not happy with the result, but if the Iraqi forces weren't willing to do the storming either, I can't think of a better solution.


Not to mention the number of Islamic people, all the ones who don't support Sadr, who would be pissed at the U.S. for doing damage to that Holy Site.
Would be like destroying the Vatican, you can piss off more people than you are after by destroying Holy Sites.

Sadr was ultimately a Catch 22, and it was good it finally got left to the Iraqis to handle, after all Sadr only wanted political power and resorted to such an action to achieve it, probably thinks Saddam's tactics are acceptable against non-Islamic people.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Madine:

Al Sadr's militia was resonsible for many of the U.S. deaths today. I don't think he will allow us to place him in a position where we can get at him again (like he was a few weeks ago). We now have 4 organized militias in Iraq, they are quite probably coordinating their attacks and the American military is going to be hard pressed to handle the problem short of using "overwhelming" force.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
kingbee and chiprj:

I think the main thing we are doing by standing between what will happen and what has happened is keeping the factions working together against a common enemy. How long is it going to be before we realise as much good as we have done that the factions don't want us there? "Winning the hearts and minds of people" wasn't a meaningful thing in Viet Nam and it won't be here.

Thanks for the kind words, chiprj!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
ShoZan:

The problem with diplomacy is that it assumes something not true in Iraq. Diplomacy assumes both sides have something to give and take. Compromise of a sort may be what we seek but ultimately we have seen time and time again the same pattern. We get the enemy into an untenable position, they negotiate their way out of it, then we find ourselves back in trouble.

I would not recommend we blow up churches, regardless of the faith, but we need to be aware that negotiating is just a ploy, not a solution.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
How long is it going to be before we realise as much good as we have done that the factions don't want us there?


That's a good question. I think we realize that they don't want us there, but we did start this business and we are obliged to see it through. I believe that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. I also believe staying until it's stabalized is the right thing to do. I just hope that we can do it as quickly as possible.

"Winning the hearts and minds of people" wasn't a meaningful thing in Viet Nam and it won't be here.


You're also right in that it will only be so effective. But I think we learned a lot of valuable lessons from Vietnam and are acting accordingly (to an extent). The problem is, that if we were to give up the fight to win hearts and minds, we'd lose them a lot quicker. And that would cause us even more problems.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
CrispE -

On this particular subject, I couldn't agree with you more in the general sense, but I agree with Madine that since the handover of sovereignty, it has indeed been the Iraqi govenment's call. I think the Iraqi government made a mistake in letting Al Sadr's thugs disperse, but from their point of view, having the moderate clerics' support of the government may have been more important in the long haul.

Having said that, I still think the handover was absolutely necessary to the ultimate success of the entire operation - we had to follow through with that promise - but it has put our troops in the most awkward and difficult of circumstances. All the more reason to offer them all the support and encouragement we can. What we are asking of them is almost without precedent and we should be proud of the way they are accepting that mission.

It troubles me that some on the left want to have it both ways - we can't be "occupiers" but we get criticized for not dealing more effectively with the resistance. Well we can do one or the other but not both. Whatever happens, the left just waits around and chooses to favor the opposite.

A little off topic, but that's what Kerry's campaign has been in its entirety - no matter what the subject, he's against whatever position Bush takes for the simple sake of being against it, not because he has a particular set of beliefs or principles that dictate it. Bush being for something is sufficient reason to be against it, simple as that. Anytime anything happens or Bush says something, he attacks it - maybe just to be sure he gets his mug on TV that same day, too, for all I know. And then he weeps all those crocodile tears about what a negative campaign Bush is waging. I guess if Bush had taken no positions on anything, we'd still be waiting to hear what Kerry's against - he wouldn't want to accidentally come out against something he might later need to be for, now would he?

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa:

I'm for consistency with the following provisos:

If we aren't going to "go strong" and take command we have to pull the troops and come home. (This half way stuff we are doing now only gets us shot up and shot down.)

If we are going to "go strong" we need to stop hiding behind an Iraqi government we put in place and whom, without our help collapses with the next desert wind that blows.

The in-between where we are now gets people killed, Bush beaten and new management.

Now, on Kerry. He agreed with Bush that invading Iraq was the right idea (although he would have done it differently). He agrees with Bush on the "no child left behind" but would fund it differently. I think on terrorism the approach is more international, but no one is closing down homeland security or pulling our troops out of Europe, the Middle East or Afghanistan on either side.

I think the 2 differ more on economic and social policies. Kerry is more oriented to labor and the over 50 crowd (social security). Bush thinks that as long as we are fighting a war, everything else is a back burner issue. I am not favoring either at this point. I want to hear the debates and hear how strongly each man projects their ideas.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
CrispE -

I definitely hear ya on the troops issue; it's a valid point.

I don't particularly like it, but there's no getting "there" from "here" without this phase, however. At some point, we'd be in this situation no matter what - only a matter of when, not if - so we've got to figure out how to get the job done and doing it sooner than later is OK by me. We can't risk being viewed by the Iraqis as just another thug subbing for Saddam, and we can't abandon the overwhelming majority of Iraqis who want to get a sovereign goverment on its feet. Tough as it is, patience and vigilance seem the only options.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

overwhelming majority of Iraqis who want to get a sovereign goverment on its feet


the majority of iraqis--if permitted to do so--will support and put in place an shi'ite islamic government.  that's the reason bush's father didnt take saddam out at the end of the gulf war.

Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
the majority of iraqis--if permitted to do so--will support and put in place an shi'ite islamic government. that's the reason bush's father didnt take saddam out at the end of the gulf war.


No it was because Congress said pull out, and ceasefire was accepted, don't forget the Kurd Revolt the US supported than backed out of and left the Kurd populations to suffer Saddam's wrath. There are more than Shi'ites in Iraq, and if they were truly allowed you would have at least four Iraqs, one for Shi'ite, one for the Kurds, one for the Sunni, and one for the rest.
Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top
Kingbee is correct this time. Yes, it is true that the ceasefire was accepted through UN and that the Congress wanted to end the war soon. Nevertheless, one of the major reason both President G. H. W. Bush and Congress made that decision is that if Saddam were to fall, Iraq can turn into a Islamic republic like Iran, or Iran will simply invade Iraq. Don't forget, in the firsr guld war, we didn't have the intention to secure Iraq. Thus it is better to have Saddam to rule Iraq then have Iraq becoming Iran , or worse... Iraq and Iran becomes one country.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
The reason foreign policy is so tricky is because the future is unknowable. The picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam in the 80's when we offering "aid and support" (including weapons) looks unfathomable now, but it was just doing business the American way then. The problem is that the "friends" you make today can become your worst nightmare tomorrow.

It is real easy to be judgmental about this. Should Saddam have been overthrown in 1992? Sure, easy answer to that. Should the Kurds and Sunni have believed that the U.S. would support their revolutions against Saddam? Probably not if they knew of our record in Central and South America. The problem is that once that occured, trust of the Americans would be nil and this might be why we see much of what we do now. BUT, the commander in the field (saw a Lt Colonel interviewed last night and he was miffed by the Iraqi actions but powerless to do anything about it) must make life and death decisions based on the current Viet Nam "hold the line" policy that didn't work then or now.

Does anyone think this is a leadership issue with the Bush administration?
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
I think Bush is showing the true colors of his leadership by focusing on the military issue and Iraqi well-being instead of focusing on "homefront" issues.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Deference:

The interesting thing about your statement is that he's not just the "foreign affairs" President but needs to balance both domestic with international issues. They are, in fact, both important. Bush certainly isn't communicating on an every day basis with troops in the field and I'm sure that leadership domestically must be better than a healthcare reform that asks for a 17% increase in medicare premiums.

Can Iraq be Bush's only concern?
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
Did Bush really say that? Do you have a link that made him suggest it?

Because I don't think Bush has the power to increase medicare premiums alone, and he certainly has to get the approval of Congress right?
The Only president as far as my knowledge is that had (almost) complete power, was Lyndon B. Johnson. But that's just my oppinion.
Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top
CrispE, in regards to your statement in post #18:

I agree with you that he shouldn't be a foreign affairs only president. That is why I made the statement above. I feel Iraq and the war on terror are overblown and mushroomed to a point of overshadowing domestic affairs. The fact that the administration is not focusing on the domestic agenda is actually the smartest move his campaign can make since things are not the best here in the states. If Bush were to focus on the home issues, he would find it harder to deal with Kerry, since Democrats traditionally have been favored by the people in regards to domestic policy (I'm not saying that is well warranted).
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Deference:

If you look at Bush's campaign, it is obvious that he thinks that's all America cares about. The sad thing is, the people who will vote for him in November are essentially voting for:
1) and average increase of 10% for healthcare premiums
2) a 15% increase for prescription medicines
3) a lack of commitment to fund education on the national level
4) huge deficits through 2016
5) a decline in the general standard of living

So, you would think people over 50 would be Bush's biggest critics, not allies.

And yet.......
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
So, you would think people over 50 would be Bush's biggest critics, not allies.


Youn people should be his critic too. His policies, and I am sorry to position the blame that reagan really should recieve, but he is the current president and he hasn't helped the problem, but rather made it worse, are going to cause massive trouble for people in the future. The government can not survive running larger and larger debt. One day we are going to crash, and we won't be able to pick ourselves up like the last depression because the government won't be able to afford an NRA because no one will loan us money.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #22 By: sandy2 - 9/10/2004 2:18:02 PM
So, you would think people over 50 would be Bush's biggest critics, not allies.


Youn people should be his critic too. His policies, and I am sorry to position the blame that reagan really should recieve, but he is the current president and he hasn't helped the problem, but rather made it worse, are going to cause massive trouble for people in the future. The government can not survive running larger and larger debt. One day we are going to crash, and we won't be able to pick ourselves up like the last depression because the government won't be able to afford an NRA because no one will loan us money


You must be one of those left-wingers....I'm a right-winger, pleased to meetcha!
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think I am more of a centrist. Liberal in human issues, but conservative in economic issues. How about yourself?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is what "truce" means to a terrorist. Truce means "to reload, to get ready to strike again, this time more violently." Negotiation means "the Americans don't have the will to do the militarily right thing and wipe us out." Relative quiet means "wait until we have more weapons supplies because all we have now is spitballs." Oh sorry, under current U.S. policy, spitballs would be a step up from negotiations.
Very good! It seems the strong leadership ballyhoo of the RNC is fraudulent. I don't see the resolve.