Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not think it was ever possible. But I did not make a decsion to go into a country, topple its dictator and also disband all its government agencies with no plan for the future of the country. Since our motives were never to create a "free people", but rather to ensure we had a dependent Arab nation as a foothold in the region, I do not think much thought was put into the actual nation building part. And had we had the patience to sit Saddam out for a while and create a climate conducive to change, rather than rushing to war, you and I would not be having this debate on where to spend our money and our resources.
The problem with your scenario is that you can't envision the situation in Iraq pre-invasion changing for the worse instead of for the better. Remember that before the war we had a substantial military presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia trying to enforce the terms of Saddam's surrender after the first Gulf war. Our planes were enforcing no-fly zones in both the north and south. There was a U.N. embargo in force. But these measures were barely keeping Saddam in check. He was using the Oil-for-Food monies to buy political influence at the U.N. with countries like France and Germany. The monies intended to feed Iraqis and to provide medical supplies was being siphoned off to fund his military and grandiose building projects. Russia, and to a lesser extent, France and Germany, were lobbying member states at the U.N. to lift sanctions against Saddam. It was just a matter of time before he was completely free to re-constitute his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs. In his State of the Union message in 2003 President Bush called the situation in Iraq a "grave and gathering threat" (not an imminent
threat as revisionist historians and pundits are now claiming) and so it was. The bottom line is we know what the invasion has cost. The costs of not invading are unknowable.
Finally, your strategy for dealing with dangerous people like Saddam and his regime is about to be tested. The world has no appetite to confront Ahmadjinedad and the mullahs in Iran. So we're waiting them out. We'll see how that works after they announce that they have a nuclear weapon.
The problem with your scenario is that you can't envision the situation in Iraq pre-invasion changing for the worse instead of for the better. Remember that before the war we had a substantial military presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia trying to enforce the terms of Saddam's surrender after the first Gulf war. Our planes were enforcing no-fly zones in both the north and south. There was a U.N. embargo in force. But these measures were barely keeping Saddam in check. He was using the Oil-for-Food monies to buy political influence at the U.N. with countries like France and Germany. The monies intended to feed Iraqis and to provide medical supplies was being siphoned off to fund his military and grandiose building projects. Russia, and to a lesser extent, France and Germany, were lobbying member states at the U.N. to lift sanctions against Saddam. It was just a matter of time before he was completely free to re-constitute his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs. In his State of the Union message in 2003 President Bush called the situation in Iraq a "grave and gathering threat" (not an imminent
threat as revisionist historians and pundits are now claiming) and so it was. The bottom line is we know what the invasion has cost. The costs of not invading are unknowable.
Finally, your strategy for dealing with dangerous people like Saddam and his regime is about to be tested. The world has no appetite to confront Ahmadjinedad and the mullahs in Iran. So we're waiting them out. We'll see how that works after they announce that they have a nuclear weapon.
The costs of invading prematurely without a reasoned plan for securing the area are immeasurable. The costs of disbanding one of the world's largest military organizations, without securing the weapons, or providing for sustaining their families are immeasurable. The costs for not having a plan for the requisite amount of initial troops to hold the peace and secure the area from looting and mayhem are immeasurable. We know for a fact, as described by John McCain himself, that the war was poorly planned and the aftermath to be expected due to the haste in which it was executed.
YOur assumption that France and Germany were only against the war because they were somehow being bought off by Saddam is to say that our alliances are frail indeed.
Patience has in fact paid off in Korea, where we did not go back in, guns blazing to destroy their nuclear program. Our troops have been out of NKorea for years and years. Patience paid off in the Soviet Union. There are many models.
Finally, your strategy for dealing with dangerous people like Saddam and his regime is about to be tested. The world has no appetite to confront Ahmadjinedad and the mullahs in Iran. So we're waiting them out. We'll see how that works after they announce that they have a nuclear weapon.
The costs of invading prematurely without a reasoned plan for securing the area are immeasurable. The costs of disbanding one of the world's largest military organizations, without securing the weapons, or providing for sustaining their families are immeasurable. The costs for not having a plan for the requisite amount of initial troops to hold the peace and secure the area from looting and mayhem are immeasurable. We know for a fact, as described by John McCain himself, that the war was poorly planned and the aftermath to be expected due to the haste in which it was executed.
YOur assumption that France and Germany were only against the war because they were somehow being bought off by Saddam is to say that our alliances are frail indeed.
Patience has in fact paid off in Korea, where we did not go back in, guns blazing to destroy their nuclear program. Our troops have been out of NKorea for years and years. Patience paid off in the Soviet Union. There are many models.
Your argument is a non sequitur. The issue you raised was not the manner in which the war was prosecuted but whether it should have been waged in the first place. I tried to point out you can't argue it shouldn't have been fought based on a static view of circumstances at the time without considering what could have gone awfully wrong hadn't we intervened when we did.
As to the point you now make, serious mistakes were made after Saddam was over thrown. But name one war that went flawlessly for us. If the Civil War were judged by your criteria then Lincoln was an abject failure as a wartime president.
The GAO as said for years that social security;medicare and medicaid are not working and in fact have issued a warning that they are going bankrupt. They warn at the current rate they will consume 16% of the 18% of the gdp that the governamnt collects from all revenue source in the near future ;leaving 2% for evryhting else.
Your argument is a non sequitur. The issue you raised was not the manner in which the war was prosecuted but whether it should have been waged in the first place. I tried to point out you can't argue it shouldn't have been fought based on a static view of circumstances at the time without considering what could have gone awfully wrong hadn't we intervened when we did.
As to the point you now make, serious mistakes were made after Saddam was over thrown. But name one war that went flawlessly for us. If the Civil War were judged by your criteria then Lincoln was an abject failure as a wartime president.
My point remains that the war did not have to be waged at the time and place we chose to do so. The original thread here was that the surge was working and that is not really a true statement. The violence was quelled, but the progress advertised and expected did not occur even in the face of the lowered violence. The response to that was that the people of Iraq are now free because of the war, to which I responded that free people are occupied by a foreign force that keeps them from killing themselves, so that part of the plan has not succeeded, and the surge did not help them become more free, just more occupied. Then the response was that Saddam was a grave danger and we had to act immediately, bringing me back to the discussion back to the origin of the war which also supports why no matter how many surges we put in there, we will not be able to extricate ourselves because we created the situation we are in now based on the problems we created at the beginning of the war. A lack of violence while under guard is not a real victory.
Last edited by janeannwho; 06-30-2008 at 01:53 PM..
Your argument is a non sequitur. The issue you raised was not the manner in which the war was prosecuted but whether it should have been waged in the first place. I tried to point out you can't argue it shouldn't have been fought based on a static view of circumstances at the time without considering what could have gone awfully wrong hadn't we intervened when we did.
As to the point you now make, serious mistakes were made after Saddam was over thrown. But name one war that went flawlessly for us. If the Civil War were judged by your criteria then Lincoln was an abject failure as a wartime president.
I have not mentioned a thing about George Bush. How long was the south patrolled by non American soldiers to keep the north and south residents from killing each other? This constant need to try to fit this unprecedented action into something in American experience is puzzling. Iraq is not America.
However back to the original post. The surge is working and perhaps the GAO measurements need to be revised to reflect changing conditions. Even Obama is showing adaptability and there is a belief that he would retain Gates as Defense Secretary. Gates has done a great job and we need to all appreciate how much better off we are with him after Rumsfeld. Certainly the negative mindset many of us had under Rumsfeld should be reconsidered under Gates. He may be the person most responsible for keeping us from doing something stupid with Iran.
Gates said something very wise recently, to paraphrase.
Bush may have started the war but the next president will be responsible for the exit plan and if done wrong that will be the legacy that they will be remembered by. Yes Obama listened, heard and is one smart cookie and is now using similar language to Gates in many ways. If Obama could pull it off Gate would be one heck of a VP candidate but that would mean leaving his job and that would be a disaster.
Those benchmarks the administration and John McCain said would help Iraq become a stable, free country capable of protecting themself, most haven't been met. There's very little good news about clean water, electricity, oil output, legislative issues, elections, etc etc etc. The good news is that violence is down. Still, the Iraqis grow tired of the US troops there.
What is John McCain to do? He's put all his eggs into this basket. Iraq is not much closer to being a sovereign country than when the surge began.
"We disagree with DOD’s statement that the security goals for this phase have been met. For example, The New Way Forward stated that the Iraqi government would take responsibility for security in all 18 provinces by November 2007, but only 8 of 18 provinces had transitioned to Iraqi control at that time. As of June 18, 2008, only 9 of 18 provinces had transitioned."
This statement is of great concern. While there are those who would have us believe the level of violence is the final benchmark for all successes in Iraq, there's quite a bit more at stake and apparently amiss.
I have not mentioned a thing about George Bush. How long was the south patrolled by non American soldiers to keep the north and south residents from killing each other? This constant need to try to fit this unprecedented action into something in American experience is puzzling. Iraq is not America.
It clearly isn't and those who attempt to draw the parallels are missing in it's entirety the situation that is Iraq.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
