PDA

View Full Version : GOP: It's time to bring the troops home...


Taco John
06-26-2007, 04:25 PM
GOP Senator Says Iraq Plan Not Working

ANNE FLAHERTY | June 26, 2007 12:06 PM EST |

WASHINGTON — Sen. Richard Lugar, a senior Republican and a reliable vote for President Bush on the war, said that Bush's Iraq strategy was not working and that the U.S. should downsize the military's role.

The unusually blunt assessment Monday deals a political blow to Bush, who has relied heavily on GOP support to stave off anti-war legislation.

It also comes as a surprise. Most Republicans have said they were willing to wait until September to see if Bush's recently ordered troop buildup in Iraq was working.

"In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," Lugar, R-Ind., said in a Senate floor speech. "Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term."

Only a few Republicans have broken ranks and called for a change in course or embraced Democratic proposals ordering troops home by a certain date. As the top Republican and former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Lugar's critique could provide political cover for more Republicans wanting to challenge Bush on the war.

Lugar's spokesman Andy Fisher said the senator wanted to express his concerns publicly before Bush reviews his Iraq strategy in September.

"They've known his position on this for quite a while," Fisher said of the White House.

However, Fisher said the speech does not mean Lugar would switch his vote on the war or embrace Democratic measures setting a deadline for troop withdrawals.

In January, Lugar voted against a resolution opposing the troop buildup, contending that the nonbinding measure would have no practical effect. In spring, he voted against a Democratic bill that would have triggered troop withdrawals by Oct. 1 with the goal of completing the pull out in six months.

Next month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., plans to force votes on several anti-war proposals as amendments to a 2008 defense policy bill. Members will decide whether to cut off money for combat, demand troop withdrawals start in four months, restrict the length of combat tours and rescind Congress' 2002 authorization of Iraqi invasion.

Expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed in the Senate to pass controversial legislation, the proposals are intended to increase pressure on Bush and play up to voters frustrated with the war.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070626/lugar-iraq/


GOP Senators back Lugar’s Iraq shift.

“Republican senators expressed support today for Indiana Sen. Richard G. Lugar’s call for an immediate change of course in Iraq,” CQ reports.

“I hail what he did,” said Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., former chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “It shows the strength that each of us individually must bring to this debate.” Warner said that he too feels the September reporting date is too long to wait to revise U.S. war policy. […]

There is a growing feeling among senators that the U.S. presence in Iraq needs review, [Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)] said, adding that he agrees that troops levels should be reduced “as soon as it is realistic to do it.” […]

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said that it is important to find out if the administration is listening to differing views on Iraq. “If they’re not, I think that many of us are going to look at legislation that will limit the number of troops,” he said. Voinovich intends to submit a letter to the administration detailing an exit plan that would include engagement with the Arab League and the United Nations, he said.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/26/gop-senators-back-lugars-iraq-shift/


Voinovich calls for gradual withdrawal from Iraq


Following up on comments by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Republican Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio) called today for President Bush to begin planning for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

In a letter to President Bush, the Ohio Republican said the president should adopt a policy of "responsible military disengagement with a corresponding increase [in] non-military support" to help the United States achieve a stable and democratic Iraq, although Voinovich warned that the window of opportunity for enacting such a plan is limited. "However, I am also concerned that we are running out of time," Voinovich added.



According to a statement from his office, Voinovich, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, was "expressing his belief that our nation must begin to develop a comprehensive plan for our gradual military disengagement from Iraq and increased diplomatic engagement. Sen. Voinovich advocates a reduction in forces as way to advance our interests in the region, including by sharing more of the responsibility for stability with Iraq’s neighbors."

Voinovich also sent Bush a copy of a report called "The Way Forward in Iraq."

Here's the text of Voinovich's letter to Bush:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0607/Voinovich_calls_for_gradual_withdrawal_from_Iraq.html

Bowser
06-26-2007, 04:34 PM
Damage Control/Spin Doctors in 5...4...3...2...

mikey23545
06-26-2007, 04:38 PM
The Islamics are right...When the going gets tough, the modern American dives under the bed....

HolmeZz
06-26-2007, 04:41 PM
Damage Control/Spin Doctors in 5...4...3...2...

The Islamics are right...When the going gets tough, the modern American dives under the bed....

On cue.

Taco John
06-26-2007, 04:55 PM
The Islamics are right...When the going gets tough, the modern American dives under the bed....



Attack Americans first mentality.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 05:06 PM
GOP Senator Says Iraq Plan Not Working
Could this have to do with selecting the wrong targets and causes?

I think so.

I'm with three former CIA bin Laden counter-terrorism agents/experts, Giraldi, McGovern and Shuer: Renew the war on alQaeda and stop with the imprecise language in order to hijack the issue.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 05:10 PM
Oh and define what a victory is. Hopefully, something that's doable and winnable as opposed to some ridiculously impossible mission like "making over the world." -- Bush. No wonder it's a war that is long and may never end.

Bowser
06-26-2007, 05:10 PM
Could this have to do with selecting the wrong targets and causes?

I think so.

I'm with three former CIA bin Laden counter-terrorism agents/experts, Giraldi, McGovern and Shuer: Renew the war on alQaeda and stop with the imprecise language in order to hijack the issue.

That's been the call of most of those that post here that are against the Iraq Civil War. It's certainly been my opinion that that is exactly what this country needs.

Pitt Gorilla
06-26-2007, 11:18 PM
The Islamics are right...When the going gets tough, the modern American dives under the bed....
Ahh, the Blame-America-First crowd strikes again.

Nightwish
06-26-2007, 11:27 PM
"In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," Lugar, R-Ind., said in a Senate floor speech. "Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term."
There's the germaine point that certain individuals around here need to get through their heads (I won't mention any names, but one of them rhymes with whatever the hell rhymes with patteeu [not entirely sure how he pronounces that]).

Logical
06-26-2007, 11:38 PM
It is about time, someone is going to have to ease patteeu into this change.

Ugly Duck
06-26-2007, 11:42 PM
Well, duh! Everybody and their brother can see that continuing to occupy Iraq instead of fighting the WOT is just pissing down a rathole. That is.... everybody but some Republican gubmint folks and their blind followers slapping themselves in the forehead saluting every slogan that comes down the pipe. Its no surprise that even Republican lawmakers can recognize the truth right in front of their eyes. Ain't nothin but common sense.

Logical
06-26-2007, 11:58 PM
Could this have to do with selecting the wrong targets and causes?

I think so.

I'm with three former CIA bin Laden counter-terrorism agents/experts, Giraldi, McGovern and Shuer: Renew the war on alQaeda and stop with the imprecise language in order to hijack the issue.

Got to agree with you this time.

Taco John
06-27-2007, 12:01 AM
I can't believe how naive I was though. I thought it would be September before Republicans started to bail on the surge. Of course, I should have known that there would be front runners who needed to show "leadership" on the issue a couple months early in order to appease their districts and try and keep their jobs.

Silock
06-27-2007, 12:12 AM
If everyone around you is saying "Man, somebody stinks" at some point, you have to think, "Maybe it's me."

patteeu
06-27-2007, 05:29 AM
The Islamics are right...When the going gets tough, the modern American dives under the bed....

Too true. We're a cardboard tiger. A little more resilient than paper, but not much.

patteeu
06-27-2007, 05:30 AM
That's been the call of most of those that post here that are against the Iraq Civil War. It's certainly been my opinion that that is exactly what this country needs.

The problem with most of you, generally speaking, is that you don't seem to have much of a clue about what that means.

PunkinDrublic
06-27-2007, 07:29 AM
The Islamics are right...When the going gets tough, the modern American dives under the bed....

When the going gets tough the modern day keyboard commando types away furiously at his computer.

Radar Chief
06-27-2007, 07:48 AM
Could this have to do with selecting the wrong targets and causes?

I think so.

I'm with three former CIA bin Laden counter-terrorism agents/experts, Giraldi, McGovern and Shuer: Renew the war on alQaeda and stop with the imprecise language in order to hijack the issue.

Are you saying al Qaeda isn’t in Iraq?

Silock
06-27-2007, 08:35 AM
Are you saying al Qaeda isn’t in Iraq?

They are *now*.

StcChief
06-27-2007, 08:40 AM
Are you saying al Qaeda isn’t in Iraq?
as soon as we live they will Own Iraq

Radar Chief
06-27-2007, 08:49 AM
http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/drilling-for-justice.htm

Drilling for Justice

On 19 June American forces sealed off Baqubah and began attacking targets within the city. The immediate goal of Arrowhead Ripper was to free Baqubah of al Qaeda, by trapping and killing its members, but according to American officers here, public remarks by senior military officials may have flushed many AQI leaders before the attack. Despite this frustrating and significant setback, progress toward the end-state goal of Arrowhead Ripper—turning over Baqubah to Iraqi government control—appears to be working, at least in terms of the removal of the current AQI leadership and its quasi-government. There are conflicting signals about how many of the AQI leadership escaped before Arrowhead Ripper launched. This weekend’s capture of a possible high-value target in Baqubah indicates that not all AQI leaders successfully fled the city before the attack.
Media reports indicating that many top leaders escaped before Arrowhead Ripper began appear to be mostly true. But other information suggests some AQI leaders are trapped just down the road from where I write. In addition to the seven men who were caught trying to escape while dressed as women, there is information that some AQI leaders remain trapped in a constricting cordon.
For security reasons, the Iraqi Army (IA) was not included in the initial planning of Arrowhead Ripper, yet with each succeeding day the IA has taken a larger role in the unfolding attack. The Fifth Iraqi Army Division is considered an increasingly competent group of fighters, and from the limited scope of 5th IA that I personally witnessed, that judgment seems correct. The 5th is committed to battle. Whereas the Iraqi Army is coming into the fight, and playing increasingly critical roles, the local police force is less impressive.
On the night of the 23 June, for instance, a police checkpoint called in to say they were under heavy small-arms attack. The same checkpoint then called frantically saying they were under RPG attack. The next even more frantic call was about a mortar attack. Yet when a Shadow UAV and Apache helicopters were dispatched, they saw no activity in the immediate area. Colonel Steve Townsend, commander of 3-2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team, brought this up to a senior Iraqi officer at a meeting on Sunday the 24th, and the Iraqi officer answered with some disgust that those particular police panic at the sound of two shots, and that each member of that police detail needs two Humvees protecting them in order to feel safe.
Also on the 24th, while I accompanied LTC Fred Johnson at a downtown meeting regarding humanitarian assistance, local enemy fighters were attacking the Iraqi Army convoys each time they passed by, about 500 yards from the meeting. The sounds of battles sometimes echoed through the police hallways, yet the Iraqi police refused to respond. Two of Johnson’s men went up to the dangerous rooftop, and SSG Matt Hudgeon patiently waited for a shot on a man about 500 yards away who had been attacking IA convoys with RPGs. Hudgeon saw the man fire two rockets, and he kept trying to get crosshairs on the enemy. When he finally got a shot, Matt steadied his breathing, slowly exhaled and squeezed the trigger of his M-14. Bam! Matt’s bullet shot the man in the stomach, and the man rolled off the two-story roof, landing in the dust next to his RPG.
Iraqi police were called—they were all around us—to recover the body or at least the weapon, but one hour later when we went to lunch, the body was still on the ground near the RPG. Although we tried to get to the RPG later, we were in a hurry to get to a cache that had just been discovered by the Iraqi Army, and our Navy and Army were on it. An F-16 was about to drop a 500-pound bomb onto a house rigged with explosives 300 yards from us and the cache but the F-16 broke off to refuel. By then, we were heading to another meeting. The body and the RPG were abandoned.
There is much work to do here, especially if the Iraqi Police continue to perform below expectations. The absence of strong local leadership is a large part of the reason AQI was able to move in and set up a shadow government in Baqubah, complete with its own court system, torture house and prison. These three pegs of the AQI justice system have been found here in the past week. The judges who administer Sharia law and issue fatwas are called Muftis. A Mufti is a “high value target” because he would have deep connections in AQI in order to have such a trusted position of power.
Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) had tarnished its name here by publicly attacking and murdering children, videotaping beheadings, all while imposing harsh punishments on Iraqi civilians found guilty of violating morality laws prohibiting activities like smoking. The AQI installed Sharia court had sanctioned the amputation of the two “smoking fingers” for those who violated anti-smoking laws. In part because local sentiment was shifting against it, AQI synthesized with other groups and undertook an image makeover, christening itself “The Islamic State of Iraq.” But the new name was just lipstick on a pig here.
On the evening of the 24th I spoke with a local Iraqi official, Colonel Faik, who said the Muftis would order the severance of the two fingers used to hold a cigarette for any Iraqis caught smoking. Other reports, from here in Diyala and also in Anbar, allege that smokers are murdered by AQI. Most Iraqis smoke and this particular prohibition appeared to have earned the ire of many locals. After an American unit cleared an apartment complex on the 23rd, LTC Smiley, the battalion commander, reported that residents didn’t ask for food and water, but cigarettes. In other parts of Baqubah, people have been celebrating the routing of AQI by lighting up and smoking cigarettes.

Radar Chief
06-27-2007, 08:50 AM
Continued

Other AQI edicts included beatings for men who refused to grow beards, and corporal punishments for obscene sexual suggestiveness, defined by such “loose” behavior as carrying tomatoes and cucumbers in the same bag. These fatwas were not eagerly embraced by most Iraqis, and the taint traveled back to the Muftis who sat in supreme judgment. Locals, who are increasingly helpful in pointing out and celebrating the downfall of AQI here, said that during the initial Arrowhead Ripper attack the morning of the 19th, AQI murdered five men. Townsend’s men found the buried corpses behind an AQI prison, exactly where they’d been told to look for the group grave. Locals also directed Townsend’s men to a torture house. Peering through a window, American soldiers saw knives, swords, bindings and drills. AQI is well-known for its macabre eagerness to drill into kneecaps, elbows, ribs, skulls, and other parts of victims.
One local Mufti who was said to have always worn a hood and sunglasses—and to have somehow disguised his voice—was pointed out to the Iraqi Army this weekend, who promptly captured him. Iraqi officials said today that although they did not previously know that this man was a Mufti, his name had been on their target list. The Mufti is being questioned and his name has not been released.
Although the battle is still unfolding here in Baqubah, Colonel Townsend reports that at least 50 AQI have been killed. Townsend’s subordinate commanders put the number as high as 100. More than 60 suspects are in custody, but Townsend is unsure how many of the suspects are truly AQI versus innocent men who will be released.
American losses include one soldier killed in action, with 21 wounded. One Bradley and one Stryker have been destroyed. The low numbers of friendly casualties have been largely due to the slow, methodical clearing operation where success is not measured against the clock. In meeting after meeting, I have seen Townsend stress to his subordinate commanders the importance of moving deliberately and at their own pace. Given the massive amounts of IEDs that have been found, my guess is that we might have taken dozens more killed by now if the clearing operation had been rushed. Doubtless many American lives have been saved by locals just saying “stop,” and pointing to bombs.
Another part of the success is just plain luck. On Sunday for instance, soldiers entered a home filled with explosives, but somehow escaped without injury. About 15 houses and buildings have been found rigged to explode. The Air Force has helped by dropping bombs on some of the rigged homes, and MLRS missiles have been fired into others. Early on Sunday morning, before embarking on the mission, I was doing a rapid bit of bird photography with an ornithologist named Captain Pike, when an Apache helicopter shot 30mm cannon into a car bomb downtown. We did not see the attack, but a mushroom cloud billowed in the background as I was rushing to photograph a beautiful bee-catcher. (Iraq has fascinating array of birds, and when this war is over, I’m coming back with a long lens and a tripod.)
The fight goes on. Sunday, Colonel Townsend said he was considering bypassing one area where many if not most of the homes appear to be rigged to explode. He doesn’t want to level the whole neighborhood. Al Qaeda has hijacked people’s homes and businesses. To save his own soldiers’ lives, he’ll destroy what needs to be destroyed, but always mindful that most of the citizens of Baqubah did not volunteer to turn their homes into bombs. Townsend’s people have learned, after hard fighting and serious losses throughout Iraq, that the best counter-IED “technology” we have is just getting out of our fighting vehicles and talking with Iraqis. Although I have seen Iraqis do this, most cannot safely shout “stop” and point to IEDs while our soldiers are driving by. Surely we have many intractable enemies here, but the Iraqis have proven countless times that engagement works.
But the enemies who remain here keep on fighting. This weekend, while soldiers continued clearing Baqubah on foot, Townsend’s soldiers returned to an area they had just cleared. The squad leader spotted a vegetable can that had not been there minutes earlier. But it was too late: the vegetable can blew up, the squad went down from the blast, and the enemy started shooting. It was all in a day’s work here. All six of those soldiers are expected to return to duty by today, Monday.
It would be nice to wrap up this dispatch with a neat ending, but accuracy requires this ending be jagged. While typing these last few words, there have been explosions, gunfire, and the sounds of helicopters and jets. The fighting has decreased remarkably over the last few days, but the last pockets have not been cleared, and nobody knows what awaits. So the battle is on and it’s time to get back with the soldiers as they clear Baqubah inch by inch, street by street.

Radar Chief
06-27-2007, 08:52 AM
They are *now*.

They were there *before* also.
But aside from that, you don’t find it to be “spin doctoring” to claim Iraq as a distraction from AQ when we’re obviously fighting them there?

Silock
06-27-2007, 09:04 AM
There's Al-Qaeda here, too.

Perhaps declaring war on ourselves would be the best course to pursue.

Bowser
06-27-2007, 09:11 AM
The problem with most of you, generally speaking, is that you don't seem to have much of a clue about what that means.

Please educate us, enlightened one.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 09:22 AM
as soon as we live they will Own Iraq
Well whose fault is that?
Further proof, that Bush didn't select the right targets or causes making things worse.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 09:31 AM
They are *now*.
:thumb:

If they were, as RC will insist on, our entrance activated them by creating the power vacuum and anarchy that allowed them to flourish. Suicide terrorism did not exist inside Iraq until then. Even now they are the small minority.

I don't agree with RC that AQ was in there before and my sources so far have been accurate on all else whereas RC's haven't. Not even our CIA's binLaden counterterrorism unit per Giraldi, McGovern and Shuer say this was really true.

I also get the impression from reading Yon, that he's most likely subjected to the same motivational pep talks our military must be getting ( loaded with govt propaganda to make 'em willing to fight) being embedded with them. My gf is former reserve and she said they pump 'em up.

HolmeZz
06-27-2007, 09:39 AM
Too true. We're a cardboard tiger. A little more resilient than paper, but not much.

Why do you hate America?

Radar Chief
06-27-2007, 10:06 AM
There's Al-Qaeda here, too.

Perhaps declaring war on ourselves would be the best course to pursue.

Why do you hate America? :p

Silock
06-27-2007, 10:11 AM
Why do you hate America? :p

I hate us for my freedom!

Radar Chief
06-27-2007, 10:34 AM
Well whose fault is that?
Further proof, that Bush didn't select the right targets or causes making things worse.

My guess is the people spreading this “Surge failure” rhetoric when the first offensive operation of it hasn’t even been completed. :shrug:

Radar Chief
06-27-2007, 10:34 AM
I hate us for my freedom!

And YouTube. :cuss:

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 10:37 AM
My guess is the people spreading this “Surge failure” rhetoric when the first offensive operation of it hasn’t even been completed. :shrug:
Who's referrin' to the surge? I was referring to invading in Iraq.

Now that you mention it though, have you seen this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6239896.stm


But villagers in largely-Shia al-Khalis say that those who died had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. They say they were local village guards trying to protect the township from exactly the kind of attack by insurgents the US military says it foiled.


Opertation Arrowhead Ripper.

Radar Chief
06-27-2007, 10:50 AM
Who's referrin' to the surge?

Sen. Lugar? :shrug:

"In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," Lugar, R-Ind., said in a Senate floor speech. "Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term."

Now that you mention it though, have you seen this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6239896.stm





Opertation Arrowhead Ripper.

But as the police and guards began to return, the police received an urgent radio message from the Joint Operations Centre saying that US helicopters were about to raid the area.

The police disappeared immediately. But before the guards could even get to their own car, they were hit by a rocket strike by American helicopters which suddenly appeared overhead.

:spock:

patteeu
06-27-2007, 11:41 AM
They are *now*.

I agree with Radar, but even if your implication that they weren't there *then* were true, the fact that they are there *now* is enough. The people, like Ron Paul, who want to fully withdraw from Iraq are withdrawing from a fight with al Qaeda that al Qaeda considers the central front of the war.

At least the people like Lugar (and the last time I checked, Barack Obama) want to leave a force in Iraq to focus on engaging al Qaeda and like-minded jihadis.

noa
06-27-2007, 11:44 AM
At least the people like Lugar (and the last time I checked, Barack Obama) want to leave a force in Iraq to focus on engaging al Qaeda and like-minded jihadis.

I've heard Joe Biden say that anyone who advocates total withdrawal from Iraq is simply blowing smoke up your ass because it could never happen. Anyone who wants to propose a serious solution to the problem has to at least allow for the fact that we will have a presence in Iraq for years to come. The only practical debate is about how many troops to station there and what their role will be.

patteeu
06-27-2007, 11:50 AM
Please educate us, enlightened one.

Look at all the people who want to withdraw from Iraq, where we are currently heavily engaged with al Qaeda, so we can focus on fighting al Qaeda. Duh.

patteeu
06-27-2007, 11:52 AM
I've heard Joe Biden say that anyone who advocates total withdrawal from Iraq is simply blowing smoke up your ass because it could never happen. Anyone who wants to propose a serious solution to the problem has to at least allow for the fact that we will have a presence in Iraq for years to come. The only practical debate is about how many troops to station there and what their role will be.

I think that's a responsible assessment on Biden's part.

patteeu
06-27-2007, 11:54 AM
Why do you hate America?

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. :)

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 12:16 PM
What I readin' is that Bush is going to be using the Korean model....so Biden is right. He just as much an imperialist, neo-coloniast, internationalist meddler as the rest of them.

Besides, when you build 14 bases there, and an embassy the size of the Vatican seems like we're attempting to be the hegemons in the area....which will not do a thing for terrorism.

Yup! Pat Buchanan's right. Empire Builders!
The exact thing that brought terror home to America.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 12:17 PM
Sen. Lugar? :shrug:

Attilla the Hun? :shrug:

Radar Chief
06-27-2007, 12:30 PM
Attilla the Hun? :shrug:


:spock: The price of tea in China? :shrug:

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 12:32 PM
Not for all the tea in China.

Pitt Gorilla
06-27-2007, 01:14 PM
Not for all the tea in China.<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4wnfChkPDmQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4wnfChkPDmQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Silock
06-27-2007, 02:09 PM
I agree with Radar, but even if your implication that they weren't there *then* were true, the fact that they are there *now* is enough. The people, like Ron Paul, who want to fully withdraw from Iraq are withdrawing from a fight with al Qaeda that al Qaeda considers the central front of the war.

At least the people like Lugar (and the last time I checked, Barack Obama) want to leave a force in Iraq to focus on engaging al Qaeda and like-minded jihadis.

Well, I guess if we just go ahead and invade everywhere, we can create Al-Qaeda there, too. That way, we can legitimately take over anywhere we want.

Brilliant! /Guiness guys

Silock
06-27-2007, 02:10 PM
what their role will be.

Cannon fodder for suicide bombers.

Radar Chief
06-27-2007, 03:05 PM
Well, I guess if we just go ahead and invade everywhere, we can create Al-Qaeda there, too. That way, we can legitimately take over anywhere we want.

Brilliant! /Guiness guys

Or we can take on al Qaeda where we find them. :thumb:

Silock
06-27-2007, 03:10 PM
So, let's invade Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, we can't do that.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 03:11 PM
Or we can take on al Qaeda where we find them. :thumb:
So why aren't we in Pakistan then?

Coulda' just stayed in Afghanistan to draw 'em in, since they taking us on where they can find us.

Radar Chief
06-27-2007, 03:12 PM
So, let's invade Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, we can't do that.

So why aren't we in Pakistan then?


Any place but Iraq? :shrug:

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 03:16 PM
Any place but Iraq? :shrug:
No. Just that there's been nothing really gained by invading Iraq.
If you want our soldiers to be a magnet for AQ, then just stay in Afghanistan...they'd be drawn back sooner or later. We gotta avoid putting troops everywhere as it just helps their cause.

Silock
06-27-2007, 03:30 PM
No. Just that there's been nothing really gained by invading Iraq.
If you want our soldiers to be a magnet for AQ, then just stay in Afghanistan...they'd be drawn back sooner or later. We gotta avoid putting troops everywhere as it just helps their cause.

Exactly.

The only way the whole Iraq thing was going to work to begin with is with a massive amount of troops that were properly armed, funded and equipped. That didn't happen, and our boys lost their lives. Now it's too late. There's not enough people in the military to sweep Iraq and call it "success."

If we stay spread out, we lack the punch needed to kill what terrorists we can find. Best to bunker up in one place. We'll never be able to kill all the terrorists or dismantle their network. You can't win an ideological war with guns. It just doesn't happen that way.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 03:33 PM
Exactly.

The only way the whole Iraq thing was going to work to begin with is with a massive amount of troops that were properly armed, funded and equipped. That didn't happen, and our boys lost their lives. Now it's too late. There's not enough people in the military to sweep Iraq and call it "success."

If we stay spread out, we lack the punch needed to kill what terrorists we can find. Best to bunker up in one place. We'll never be able to kill all the terrorists or dismantle their network. You can't win an ideological war with guns. It just doesn't happen that way.
Not to mention that conventional nation-state warfare won't do against alQaeda unless that nation state was in close alliance and/or collaboration with them which Iraq, Iran and Syria were not.

patteeu
06-27-2007, 06:26 PM
Well, I guess if we just go ahead and invade everywhere, we can create Al-Qaeda there, too. That way, we can legitimately take over anywhere we want.

Brilliant! /Guiness guys

I don't see any reason to invade everywhere at the moment. But I think it might help you if you focused on assessing the situation as it is, not as you imagine it would have been if some alternative path had been taken at some point in history. It's too late to decide not to create Israel, it's too late to decide not to abandon the Shah of Iran, it's too late not to be too timid to take out OBL before he could launch the 9/11 attacks, and it's too late to decide not to invade Iraq. Those historical decisions might be interesting in terms of learning lessons but they can't simply be ignored and wished away.

patteeu
06-27-2007, 06:29 PM
So, let's invade Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, we can't do that.

Oh wait, the Saudis are cooperating with us and have determined that taking on al Qaeda is a joint interest.

patteeu
06-27-2007, 06:47 PM
No. Just that there's been nothing really gained by invading Iraq.
If you want our soldiers to be a magnet for AQ, then just stay in Afghanistan...they'd be drawn back sooner or later. We gotta avoid putting troops everywhere as it just helps their cause.

Nothing has been gained by invading Iraq? Saddam is gone for good and we have an opportunity to deal al Qaeda a devastating blow if our retreat chorus doesn't win the day for them.

We've also gone a long way toward developing the human intelligence capabilities that we so woefully lacked at the outset of our GWoT.

According to the declassified key findings of the 2006 NIE, we will end up with more jihadists if they perceive that they've achieved a victory in Iraq and fewer if they perceive that they've failed. Those are the stakes now, regardless of whether you think going into Iraq was a mistake or not.

patteeu
06-27-2007, 06:50 PM
Not to mention that conventional nation-state warfare won't do against alQaeda unless that nation state was in close alliance and/or collaboration with them which Iraq, Iran and Syria were not.

We're not engaged in nation state warfare. That part of the Iraq conflict only lasted 3 weeks and it was a smashing success.

And as for Silock's statement about guns and ideological wars, we aren't relying exclusively on guns. We need to continue to use all our levers of power against this threat including diplomacy, trade, police work, intelligence, propaganda/ideas, AND guns.

Taco John
06-27-2007, 06:55 PM
I don't see any reason to invade everywhere at the moment. But I think it might help you if you focused on assessing the situation as it is, not as you imagine it would have been if some alternative path had been taken at some point in history. It's too late to decide not to create Israel, it's too late to decide not to abandon the Shah of Iran, it's too late not to be too timid to take out OBL before he could launch the 9/11 attacks, and it's too late to decide not to invade Iraq. Those historical decisions might be interesting in terms of learning lessons but they can't simply be ignored and wished away.



Yes, but it's not too late to change policy so that we can avoid continuing to add to that string of terrible decisions all the way into bankruptcy.

patteeu
06-27-2007, 07:07 PM
Yes, but it's not too late to change policy so that we can avoid continuing to add to that string of terrible decisions all the way into bankruptcy.

The President just changed policy 5 months or so ago. We're waiting to see how the new policy pans out. If it doesn't seem to be working after a reasonable length of time, we should change policy again. But I think all of those democrats who are prejudging the results should recuse themselves from the evaluation and I'm against any change of policy that is designed to give the jihadists a victory in any event.

Taco John
06-27-2007, 07:09 PM
I'm against any change of policy that is designed to give the jihadists a victory...


You just described the Iraq war.

patteeu
06-27-2007, 07:16 PM
You just described the Iraq war.

No, I described retreating from the Iraq war.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 07:48 PM
I think its ridiculous that leaving Iraq gives the Jihadist's a victory.
You say I have a boogeyman pat but yours is the Islamofacists.
They want us out of their country....period.
When we leave, if we ever do, they may turn on AQ more and get rid of them.
The others may turn on each other too. But AQ is a small minority. In fact Sunnis are already turning on them. And let's not forget that AQ doesn't want us to leave either. They like that we're there; have said so too. It doesn't give them any victory...and the WoT will not be over either.

Silock
06-27-2007, 07:57 PM
I don't see any reason to invade everywhere at the moment. But I think it might help you if you focused on assessing the situation as it is, not as you imagine it would have been if some alternative path had been taken at some point in history. It's too late to decide not to create Israel, it's too late to decide not to abandon the Shah of Iran, it's too late not to be too timid to take out OBL before he could launch the 9/11 attacks, and it's too late to decide not to invade Iraq. Those historical decisions might be interesting in terms of learning lessons but they can't simply be ignored and wished away.

It's NOT to late to make the right decision in the future, though.

Silock
06-27-2007, 07:59 PM
Oh wait, the Saudis are cooperating with us and have determined that taking on al Qaeda is a joint interest.

It's only a joint interest because AQ wants to overthrow the government. How convenient for them.

Silock
06-27-2007, 08:00 PM
We've also gone a long way toward developing the human intelligence capabilities that we so woefully lacked at the outset of our GWoT.

Yeah, firing all those gay translators was a great first step ROFL

Silock
06-27-2007, 08:04 PM
I think its ridiculous that leaving Iraq gives the Jihadist's a victory.
You say I have a boogeyman pat but yours is the Islamofacists.
They want us out of their country....period.
When we leave, if we ever do, they may turn on AQ more and get rid of them.
The others may turn on each other too. But AQ is a small minority. In fact Sunnis are already turning on them. And let's not forget that AQ doesn't want us to leave either. They like that we're there; have said so too. It doesn't give them any victory...and the WoT will not be over either.

It's just a lose-lose situation.

patteeu
06-28-2007, 12:09 AM
I think its ridiculous that leaving Iraq gives the Jihadist's a victory.
You say I have a boogeyman pat but yours is the Islamofacists.
They want us out of their country....period.
When we leave, if we ever do, they may turn on AQ more and get rid of them.
The others may turn on each other too. But AQ is a small minority. In fact Sunnis are already turning on them. And let's not forget that AQ doesn't want us to leave either. They like that we're there; have said so too. It doesn't give them any victory...and the WoT will not be over either.

I'm just going by the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate. I'll take their assessment over al Qaeda propaganda any day, despite some high profile failures in recent years.

patteeu
06-28-2007, 12:10 AM
It's NOT to late to make the right decision in the future, though.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't have much to do with whether we fight al Qaeda in Iraq or run from them, afaics.

patteeu
06-28-2007, 12:11 AM
It's only a joint interest because AQ wants to overthrow the government. How convenient for them.

So what?

patteeu
06-28-2007, 12:13 AM
Yeah, firing all those gay translators was a great first step ROFL

Whatever the first step, we're in much better shape now in that regard than we were before we invaded Iraq, which is what is relevant to the statement I was responding to.

Silock
06-28-2007, 06:03 AM
That's all well and good, but it doesn't have much to do with whether we fight al Qaeda in Iraq or run from them, afaics.

Unless you have a prescience that I'm not aware of, it's impossible to tell if "running" from them is the right or wrong thing to do.

Silock
06-28-2007, 06:04 AM
So what?

So they're not fighting them on an ideological basis. Their interests are purely preservational. That's a huge difference because it's something that can change in the blink of an eye.

Adept Havelock
06-28-2007, 09:55 AM
Unless you have a prescience that I'm not aware of, it's impossible to tell if "running" from them is the right or wrong thing to do.

Prescience?

Oh no! Patteeu is the Kwisatch Haderach!

WoodDraw
06-28-2007, 10:46 AM
Whatever the first step, we're in much better shape now in that regard than we were before we invaded Iraq, which is what is relevant to the statement I was responding to.

How so?

patteeu
06-29-2007, 11:14 AM
Unless you have a prescience that I'm not aware of, it's impossible to tell if "running" from them is the right or wrong thing to do.

Since that's always going to be technically true (I'm not the only one who lacks prescience, btw), how can you talk about making the right decision in the future? It's all just a crap shoot, right?

patteeu
06-29-2007, 11:21 AM
So they're not fighting them on an ideological basis. Their interests are purely preservational. That's a huge difference because it's something that can change in the blink of an eye.

Again, so what? We should take these things into account when we decide how to interact with foreign entities. Suggesting that we invade them at a moment when their interests are currently aligned to a significant extent with ours (post #49) strikes me as a dumb idea. That doesn't mean there won't be a point in the future when an invasion or some other policy short of hand-holding, mutual back-scratching cooperation would be warranted.

Silock
06-29-2007, 11:29 AM
Since that's always going to be technically true (I'm not the only one who lacks prescience, btw), how can you talk about making the right decision in the future? It's all just a crap shoot, right?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That's what our current FP is. I don't know that Ron Paul's way is going to work 100% all of the time, but it's certainly time to at least give it a try.

Cochise
06-29-2007, 11:30 AM
That doesn't mean there won't be a point in the future when an invasion or some other policy short of hand-holding, mutual back-scratching cooperation would be warranted.

warmonger.

patteeu
06-29-2007, 04:48 PM
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That's what our current FP is. I don't know that Ron Paul's way is going to work 100% all of the time, but it's certainly time to at least give it a try.

We've never been in a position where we have to choose between staying in Iraq to fight al Qaeda or running from them so you are drifting pretty far afield from the point again.

But as for our current FP, it is quite a radical departure from the so-called realism of the past. I understand that it's not a departure in the direction that you, Paul, BEP, and the rest of the neo-isolationists want, but it's far from "the same thing over and over again."

patteeu
06-29-2007, 04:50 PM
warmonger.

Nah, it's just that I've got stock in the defense industry and I'm long on oil. ;)

BucEyedPea
06-29-2007, 04:50 PM
We've never been in a position where we have to choose between staying in Iraq to fight al Qaeda or running from them so you are drifting pretty far afield from the point again.

But as for our current FP, it is quite a radical departure from the so-called realism of the past. I understand that it's not a departure in the direction that you, Paul, BEP, and the rest of the non-internventionis want, but it's far from "the same thing over and over again."


fyp

patteeu
06-30-2007, 07:21 AM
How so?

We've been working directly with Iraqis from the street level to the top of their current government so we'd better be developing human intel resources during this window of opportunity.

Logical
06-30-2007, 06:45 PM
We've been working directly with Iraqis from the street level to the top of their current government so we'd better be developing human intel resources during this window of opportunity.

This we agree on, somehow I would bet the Bush admin has even managed to F*ck up this opportunity though.

DenverChief
06-30-2007, 06:52 PM
I disagree...and many who have known me for a while on here know that is a 180

Logical
06-30-2007, 06:53 PM
I disagree...and many who have known me for a while on here know that is a 180LOL are you disagreeing with me, the thread or some other poster?

CHIEF4EVER
06-30-2007, 07:31 PM
I wasn't against the premise of our involvement in Iraq but I am against the continuing involvement there. If the Iraqi government isn't willing or able to make the necessary changes to ensure peace in their own country (i.e. a plan to distribute oil revenues et al) and secure their own nation then I say eff them. We aren't the Iraqi police force. Let them sort it out themselves.

DenverChief
06-30-2007, 07:33 PM
LOL are you disagreeing with me, the thread or some other poster?

The title of the thread :)

DenverChief
06-30-2007, 07:34 PM
I wasn't against the premise of our involvement in Iraq but I am against the continuing involvement there. If the Iraqi government isn't willing or able to make the necessary changes to ensure peace in their own country (i.e. a plan to distribute oil revenues et al) and secure their own nation then I say eff them. We aren't the Iraqi police force. Let them sort it out themselves.


That is kinda what we did in Afghanistan for other reasons of course and look what it got us.....the Taliban, I don't want another dictatorship in Iraq hell bent on the destruction of the U.S. and Israel

CHIEF4EVER
06-30-2007, 07:42 PM
That is kinda what we did in Afghanistan for other reasons of course and look what it got us.....the Taliban, I don't want another dictatorship in Iraq hell bent on the destruction of the U.S. and Israel

I hear ya brother. I am just weary of the bullshit. The Iraqis ("government") have it in their power to change things but seem unwilling to do so. Why in the hell should we stay there forever in the hope that they will? If they want to kill each other in the name of extremisim, why are we in the middle of it? Al Quaeda is based in Afghanistan. Let's concentrate our efforts there IMO.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2007, 07:51 PM
Al Quaeda is based in Afghanistan. Let's concentrate our efforts there IMO.
I completely agree with this. Or AQ is in Pakistan near the border. Renew the war on AlQaeda.

We leave Iraq, the AQ that is there, a minority, will go as there's no longer a purpose since there are no American troops to target and will go to Afghanistan. And let's face it, Afghanistan is the one who rightfully lost its sovereignty and should be occupied.

DenverChief
06-30-2007, 08:35 PM
I completely agree with this. Or AQ is in Pakistan near the border. Renew the war on AlQaeda.

We leave Iraq, the AQ that is there, a minority, will go as there's no longer a purpose since there are no American troops to target and will go to Afghanistan. And let's face it, Afghanistan is the one who rightfully lost its sovereignty and should be occupied.


:shrug: Next stop? VIETNAM! You make a movie? NOT THIS TIME PAL!


Seriously we should help out lebanon

Bowser
06-30-2007, 08:41 PM
I hear ya brother. I am just weary of the bullshit. The Iraqis ("government") have it in their power to change things but seem unwilling to do so. Why in the hell should we stay there forever in the hope that they will? If they want to kill each other in the name of extremisim, why are we in the middle of it? Al Quaeda is based in Afghanistan. Let's concentrate our efforts there IMO.

And Syria, and our "buddies" in Saudi Arabia...

patteeu
07-01-2007, 07:45 AM
Al Quaeda is based in Afghanistan. Let's concentrate our efforts there IMO.

If you posted this 8 years ago, you're right. But not now.

Al Qaeda is a global organization without national boundaries. It can't be defeated by fighting it in one location. Even if you're talking about the top tier of al Qaeda leadership (#1 and #2), they are more likely in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. I'm all for hunting down bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, but I'm skeptical about how much of a difference killing/capturing those two will do in the larger scheme of things.