And the chaos continues...day of death in Baghdad

[AEON]

You know if that JFK quote - the paragraph you highlighted - had never been uttered and Bush actually said it today, the first reaction from most would be "Wow. The White House finally hired a competent speech writer" and then they'd think "So he's going to bomb Iran then."

You had me rolling with this quote! LOL

You're right though, the Democrats need to grow a set, and, in a sense, take back ownership of a quote like that and make US foreign policy inspiring again. They are too focused on being the anti. They do need to, to quote a rather popular rock and/or roll band, dream it all up again.

Agreed. A JFK/FDR style Democrat Party is essential to American survival.

 

[BVS]

As for "antiwar democrats" the vast majority of Democrats in both the US Senate and US House opposed the use of military force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait in January 1991, including Senator Joe Biden and Senator John Kerry.

Do you ever actually just answer the question asked?

How many opposed Afghanistan?

 

[U2DMfan]

How many opposed Afghanistan?

The authorization for military force on 9/14/01 was 98-0.
The two who didn't vote were Larry Craig and Jesse Helms, both Republicans.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/107/senate/1/votes/281/

 

[Irvine511]

i find it funny when people look at the words of politicians -- which haven't changed all that much, everyone loves some red meat "freedom" language -- instead of their actions. being willing to stare down the Soviet Union, as opposed to walking around the Middle East and instigating fights and embarking on poorly planned (if planned at all) exercises in foolish ideology that are ultimately funded by the worst motivators of all (oil) and fabricating crises in order to accomplish these goals, are two very differen things.

i guarantee you JFK and FDR would be aghast at Iraq.

 

[BVS]

 

[AEON]

i guarantee you JFK and FDR would be aghast at Iraq.

They would be aghast by both the poor execution in Phase 2 of the fighting and they would be aghast at the protesters. I think both men believed that when a nation decides to go to war - they should do it united and with a single purpose - victory.

And please don't say the protestors are every bit as patriotic as the soldiers. I can read the signs they carry and the flags they burn. They hate the "system" - they hate capitalist constitutional republics. The war just gives them an excuse to protest "American imperialism."

Indeed, JFK and FDR would certainly be aghast - just not by what you think.

 

[BVS]

They would be aghast by both the poor execution in Phase 2 of the fighting and they would be aghast at the protesters. I think both men believed that when a nation decides to go to war - they should do it united and with a single purpose - victory.

I'm pretty sure they would be standing up against Bush and Rove with everything they have, don't kid yourself. But to be honest we can't say with any certainty what these two men would think or feel, so why can't we just let them rest?

And please don't say the protestors are every bit as patriotic as the soldiers. I can read the signs they carry and the flags they burn. They hate the "system" - they hate capitalist constitutional republics. The war just gives them an excuse to protest "American imperialism."

So you've got it all figured out, a few protestors are against capitalism so now everyone fits in the same box. Wow, I guess all Republicans are sexists bigots as well.

 

[Irvine511]

They would be aghast by both the poor execution in Phase 2 of the fighting and they would be aghast at the protesters. I think both men believed that when a nation decides to go to war - they should do it united and with a single purpose - victory.

they would be aghast at the manufacturing of a crisis and an unnecessary toppling of a government that has unleashed deep-rooted sectarian tensions in a country that has always been little more than a figment of Winston Churchill's imagination.



[q]And please don't say the protestors are every bit as patriotic as the soldiers. I can read the signs they carry and the flags they burn. They hate the "system" - they hate capitalist constitutional republics. The war just gives them an excuse to protest "American imperialism." [/q]


firstly, the act of protesting is every bit as patriotic as enrolling in the militalry. and, please, you're smarter than to let a fringe few speak for the hundreds of thousands -- myself included -- who have marched in DC, NYC, SF, and in every major city across the Western world.

shall i talk to you about the protest of the protest where they hung an effigy of Jane Fonda and had signs that called her "Hanoi Jane -- Traitor Bitch"? shall we talk about the shouting matches they instigated? shall we talk about the shameless manipulation of one soldier who had lost a foot in Iraq who instigated shouting matches so that he could then go on O'Reilly and talk about how much the protestors hate the troops?

i've been to these marches, and participated. and there are unwashed idiots there. and you know what? they are entitled to express their opinions as well. but the vast, vast majority of people are mainstream and suburban.

and i've never, ever seen a flag burning.

though i did see one in Glasgow, Scotland. but that's another story.

and AEON, why don't you focus on the real enemy of success in Iraq. you're sadly mistaken if you think getting mad at protestors is somehow going to make people feel better.

this is a sad strategy that was used in Vietnam. blame the activists. blame the left. blame the Democrats. STING has already started doing this, because it's too humiliating, apparently, to focus internally and realize that you supported the wrong policies, voted for the wrong people, and allowed yourself to be manipulated by the worst possible people. you voted for incompetency and cronyism, and you've got a civl war in Iraq (and a disaster in New Orleans).

blame Bush. blame Cheney. blame the Republicans. blame the supplicant Democrats.

do NOT blame those who are simply exercising their rights. they are not the enemy of success.

how did you vote in 2000 and 2004? therein you'll find the enemy of success.

 

[AEON]

Exercising a right provided and protected by the soldiers is not the same as being a soldier. In my view, there is no way these folks are every bit as patriotic.

I don't blame the protesters for the problems in Iraq. I simply stated that I think they would make men like FDR and JFK aghast. However, I will state that I think that overall, they are doing more harm than good. Most soldiers I know simply think these people are opportunists and dismiss them.

But I do agree we might have the wrong leadership to fight this war the way it should be fought.

 

[Irvine511]

Exercising a right provided and protected by the soldiers is not the same as being a soldier. In my view, there is no way these folks are every bit as patriotic.

then we'll have to agree to disagree. if anything, i find a "my country, right or wrong" a totalitarian attitude, not a democratic one. i'd much rather have people speaking out against bad policies than going along with them out of blind patriotism.


[q]However, I will state that I think that overall, they are doing more harm than good. Most soldiers I know simply think these people are opportunists and dismiss them.[/q]

if they are dismissed, how are they doing harm?

this is democracy in action. this is precisely the type of free speech and independent thought that terrify religious theocracies. nothing pisses of the terrorists more, and rightly so. protests are indictive of the health of debate and thought in our society.

But I do agree we might have the wrong leadership to fight this war the way it should be fought.

do you agree that the central reasoning, however, was correct? it's merely the implementation of the policy that has been shameful, not that the policy itself was flawed?

 

[BVS]

Exercising a right provided and protected by the soldiers is not the same as being a soldier.

Tell that to MLK.

 

[anitram]

Exercising a right provided and protected by the soldiers is not the same as being a soldier. In my view, there is no way these folks are every bit as patriotic.

What a load of crock, honestly.

Somebody's more patriotic because they hold a gun overseas in a country that isn't theirs fighting a losing battle? Whatever, it's a ridiculous idea.

As soon as you take on this view, of course nobody will be able to negotiate a compromise with you given that you've already prioritized patriotism as you see it fit.

Then again, the entire notion of measuring one's patriotism kind of escapes me.

 

[Vincent Vega]

blind patriotism and valueing of such can lead to a disaster know country wants to face.

No one is un-patriotic by stating publically that he wants his son or daughter back home safe.

Sure, in every march there are some idiots, even some "enemies of the state". But they really are a minority.

 

[AEON]

What a load of crock, honestly.

Somebody's more patriotic because they hold a gun overseas in a country that isn't theirs fighting a losing battle? Whatever, it's a ridiculous idea.

No. They are more patriotic because they are putting their lives on the line for their country. What does the protester risk?

I am not saying that protesting should be illegal. I'm just saying that doing so in a time of war seems to serve the enemy more than it does the United States. The soldiers may dismiss them, but the general population does not.

Irvine, to answer your question about the actual policy - I do think that if we really thought there was WMD in Iraq - then the invasion was justified. Since everyone from Chirac to Hillary to Bush all came to the same conclusion based on intelligence from independent, multinational organizations - it was the right call. Since it appears this was a bluff by Saddam - it was too late to simply leave and say "our bad." We were then committed to rebuild the country. That is why the blame game at this point is a waste of time. The mission now is a stable, independent democracy. I see no other choice. And the best way to achieve it is for the public to stand united and give the military all the resources and time it needs to complete the mission.

The enemy believes the West is weak. The images of protesters reinforce that attitude. They know that if they can stay on the front page – they will defeat us because we will allow ourselves to be defeated. How will this be good for the United States? Iraq? The world?

I believe the United States is the greatest experiment in history and is mankind’s last, greatest hope.

 

[Irvine511]

No. They are more patriotic because they are putting their lives on the line for their country. What does the protester risk?

getting wiretapped?

i would argue that doctors, nurses, firemen, police officers, etc., put their lives on the line, and protect the lives of, their fellow citizens. to me, that's an act of patriotism that's more profound because it doesn't involve bombs and flags. and many of them are protestors.

this is not to disrespect miliary service; i just don't think it's the highest patriotic calling. i can be a wonderful thing, and i am grateful to the military. i just dont' think they are better than others.



[q]I am not saying that protesting should be illegal. I'm just saying that doing so in a time of war seems to serve the enemy more than it does the United States. The soldiers may dismiss them, but the general population does not.[/q]

why do you have so little faith in our country and our citizens? besides, what good is free speach, or any principles, really, if you abandon them at difficult moments? this is why, for example, i support the right of someone to burn a flag. sure, it's offensive. i would never burn a flag. but because i retain the right to burn a flag, for me, guarantees that i would never exercise that paricular right.

and, again, i don't think it serves the enemy. they don't rub their hands with glee when they see protests. they get excited when people re-elected the greatest recruitment tool Al-Qaeda could have ever hoped for -- George W. Bush.

and, ultimately, who cares? both are strong expressions of democracy and central values of the West. this is what we are fighting to preserve, isn't it?


[q]Irvine, to answer your question about the actual policy - I do think that if we really thought there was WMD in Iraq - then the invasion was justified. Since everyone from Chirac to Hillary to Bush all came to the same conclusion based on intelligence from independent, multinational organizations - it was the right call. Since it appears this was a bluff by Saddam - it was too late to simply leave and say "our bad." We were then committed to rebuild the country.[/q]

but you'll recall: only ONE country really thought this was worth going to war over. yes, there was consensus that Saddam probably had some WMD capacities. there was no consensus as to what to do about it.

a reckoning with Saddam was coming, i agree with that. but when that happened, and how that happened, and more importantly WHO decided when and how that reckoning occurred, have all led to the disaster we have right now.

never forget: the invasion of Iraq was timed to coincide to kick-off Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.


[q]That is why the blame game at this point is a waste of time. The mission now is a stable, independent democracy. I see no other choice. And the best way to achieve it is for the public to stand united and give the military all the resources and time it needs to complete the mission.[/q]

it's the present administration that has NEVER give the military the resources and time it needs. if you wanted to effectively occupy Iraq, you'd need a good 500,000 troops. where are you going to get those?

much of this comes down to Rumsfeld. the reason why the post-war plan was such a mess was because there was no post-war plan. they thought they could walk in, topple the government, hand Ahmed Chalabi a copy of The Federalist Papers, and have the troops coming home over the summer of 2004 as Bush barnstormed his way to a Reagan-esque relection.

not so.



[q]The enemy believes the West is weak. The images of protesters reinforce that attitude. They know that if they can stay on the front page – they will defeat us because we will allow ourselves to be defeated. How will this be good for the United States? Iraq? The world?[/q]

again, who cares? the enemy misreads. the strength of the West is that we have space for dissent. that we allow ideas to be contested.

you really are blaming the protestors.



[q]I believe the United States is the greatest experiment in history and is mankind’s last, greatest hope. [/q]

that's a lovely thought, and it brings to mind the georgeousness of the last page of The Great Gatsby, but please understand that there are many, many people who are going to find such a statement offensive, at the least.

and no one has done more to extinguish this "hope" you speak of than George W. Bush.

 

[A_Wanderer]

i find it funny when people look at the words of politicians -- which haven't changed all that much, everyone loves some red meat "freedom" language -- instead of their actions. being willing to stare down the Soviet Union, as opposed to walking around the Middle East and instigating fights and embarking on poorly planned (if planned at all) exercises in foolish ideology that are ultimately funded by the worst motivators of all (oil) and fabricating crises in order to accomplish these goals, are two very differen things.

i guarantee you JFK and FDR would be aghast at Iraq.

Sure if Kennedy had a chance to follow Vietnam through and see the results.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I believe the United States is the greatest experiment in history and is mankind’s last, greatest hope.

Hubris: In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of knowledge, interest in, and exploration of history, combined with a lack of humility.

 

[AEON]

Hubris: In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of knowledge, interest in, and exploration of history, combined with a lack of humility.

I'm sorry you think so. I am not sure if such an attitude toward my statement is descriptive or prescriptive of the problems I mentioned.

 

[STING2]

i find it funny when people look at the words of politicians -- which haven't changed all that much, everyone loves some red meat "freedom" language -- instead of their actions. being willing to stare down the Soviet Union, as opposed to walking around the Middle East and instigating fights and embarking on poorly planned (if planned at all) exercises in foolish ideology that are ultimately funded by the worst motivators of all (oil) and fabricating crises in order to accomplish these goals, are two very differen things.

i guarantee you JFK and FDR would be aghast at Iraq.

They would be proud that Bush understood fundamental US national security concerns in the Persian Gulf and took action to prevent a deteriorating security situation from becoming worse. The only person launching unprovoked invasions of other countries through out the region was Saddam. The only one using WMD against his neighbors and his own people was Saddam. The only one threatening the cut the planet off from its vital supply of energy, without which the global economy would collapse, was Saddam. It was FDR who realized the importance of Persian Gulf Oil and started the special relationship that the United States has had with Saudi Arabia for 60 years now.

While military intervention in South Vietnam was important, both FDR and JFK would recognize that the loss of Persian Gulf Oil would have a worse impact even at a time when the world was much less dependent on it just after World War II.

 

[Vincent Vega]

While military intervention in South Vietnam was important, both FDR and JFK would recognize that the loss of Persian Gulf Oil would have a worse impact even at a time when the world was much less dependent on it just after World War II.

That always sounds as if you own the oil.

Oh, I forgot, you do.


And please, save your time, I don't need a lecture about how important oil is for the global economy.

 

[Irvine511]

They would be proud that Bush understood fundamental US national security concerns in the Persian Gulf and took action to prevent a deteriorating security situation from becoming worse. The only person launching unprovoked invasions of other countries through out the region was Saddam. The only one using WMD against his neighbors and his own people was Saddam. The only one threatening the cut the planet off from its vital supply of energy, without which the global economy would collapse, was Saddam. It was FDR who realized the importance of Persian Gulf Oil and started the special relationship that the United States has had with Saudi Arabia for 60 years now.

While military intervention in South Vietnam was important, both FDR and JFK would recognize that the loss of Persian Gulf Oil would have a worse impact even at a time when the world was much less dependent on it just after World War II.

well, garbage, and you know that.

and yet, you've made the region far more dangerous for your oil.

but at least you're honest. Blood For Oil. i'm happy you're totally fine to send Americans to die for natural resources -- it's not like there's oil in, say, Russia.

 

[STING2]

this is a sad strategy that was used in Vietnam. blame the activists. blame the left. blame the Democrats. STING has already started doing this, because it's too humiliating, apparently, to focus internally and realize that you supported the wrong policies, voted for the wrong people, and allowed yourself to be manipulated by the worst possible people. you voted for incompetency and cronyism, and you've got a civl war in Iraq (and a disaster in New Orleans).

blame Bush. blame Cheney. blame the Republicans. blame the supplicant Democrats.

do NOT blame those who are simply exercising their rights. they are not the enemy of success.

how did you vote in 2000 and 2004? therein you'll find the enemy of success.

There is nothing wrong with questioning Democrats withdrawal plans which simply allow Al Quada to have a safe haven in Al Anbar Province, allow everything that has been achieved over the past 4 years to collapse, does nothing to ensure that the Iraqi government and military will survive, and ultimately will set the conditions for another US intevention under far worse circumstances.

Its puzzling to watch Democrats claim they are concerned about fighting Al Quada yet want to withdraw US combat troops from Al Anbar province, the area of greatest Al Quada activity, while keeping US troops in Afghanistan where actual Al Quada activity is almost non-existent.

There will never be anything wrong or humiliating about supporting the removal of Saddam from power. Its important to understand the fundamental US security concerns in the Persian Gulf as well as the problems of containing Saddam and the history of the containment effort from 1991 through 2003, in order to understand the logical reasons behind the removal of Saddam. But if your ignorate of that history and think that the conflict with Saddam all of sudden started in late 2002, then your simply not understanding the full range of issues facing the United States in regards to Saddam.

One can indeed see mistakes that were made in the past four years and there have been many. But none of them change the fact that the removal of Saddam was a necessity and that the only way towards peace and stability in Iraq today is to strengthen the Iraqi government and military and not abandon Iraq to potential chaos and Al Quada.

 

[Irvine511]

There is nothing wrong with questioning Democrats withdrawal plans which simply allow Al Quada to have a safe haven in Al Anbar Province, allow everything that has been achieved over the past 4 years to collapse, does nothing to ensure that the Iraqi government and military will survive, and ultimately will set the conditions for another US intevention under far worse circumstances.

Its puzzling to watch Democrats claim they are concerned about fighting Al Quada yet want to withdraw US combat troops from Al Anbar province, the area of greatest Al Quada activity, while keeping US troops in Afghanistan where actual Al Quada activity is almost non-existent.

it's amazing how predictably you follow the party line of blame the Left/Democrats whenever idiotic military missions result in disaster and embarass the forces you claim to love.

anyway, to dispell more of your myths:

[q]WASHINGTON — In another sign of Republican unease with the president's Iraq policies, a third GOP senator expressed support Thursday for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq under certain conditions.

Sen. Olympia J. Snowe announced she would sponsor a bill to require American commanders to plan a withdrawal within 120 days of the bill's enactment, unless the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks.

"The Iraq government needs to understand that our commitment is not infinite," said Snowe, a moderate from Maine who frequently departs from the party line.

President Bush has insisted that Congress not impose any limits on his conduct of the four-year-old war. But Snowe has taken issue with that view.

"It is our business as well," she said Thursday.

Snowe is not backing a Senate Democratic plan approved last month that would require the president to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days and would set a nonbinding goal of complete withdrawal by March.

But that plan did draw the support of two GOP senators, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon H. Smith of Oregon. [/q]

the GOP wants out. sure, they're distinguishing themselves from some of the Democrats, but that's merely a political gesture. they want off this sinking ship. and there will be more Republicans.


[q]But if your ignorate of that history and think that the conflict with Saddam all of sudden started in late 2002, then your simply not understanding the full range of issues facing the United States in regards to Saddam.[/q]

and for you, the history of Iraq started in 1980.

and that's why the removal of Saddam Hussein was a bad idea -- it was done by people like you who believe the US can do anything it wants, history be damned, will of the conquored people be damned, rest of the world be damned, history be damned, planning be damned, reason be damned.

you've shit the bed, now lie in it.

and i'll post this, but i think this is the last time i'll respond to you in this thread. if others can tune out the above lunacy that gets soldiers killed, i should be able to as well.

 

[STING2]

but you'll recall: only ONE country really thought this was worth going to war over. yes, there was consensus that Saddam probably had some WMD capacities. there was no consensus as to what to do about it.

a reckoning with Saddam was coming, i agree with that. but when that happened, and how that happened, and more importantly WHO decided when and how that reckoning occurred, have all led to the disaster we have right now.

never forget: the invasion of Iraq was timed to coincide to kick-off Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.

If there was only one country that really thought this was worth going to war over, there would only be one country involved, and that has not been the case at any point. John Kerry tried to use the same arguement in 1991 in voting against the first Persian Gulf War.

Removing Saddam later than 2003 was not going to be any easier, and with the crumbling of the Weapons Embargo, it would likely involve much heavier casualties and fighting making the post-war occupation even more difficult.

 

[STING2]

well, garbage, and you know that.

and yet, you've made the region far more dangerous for your oil.

but at least you're honest. Blood For Oil. i'm happy you're totally fine to send Americans to die for natural resources -- it's not like there's oil in, say, Russia.

Not garbage, fact. The removal of Saddam's regime has made Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian oil more secure than it has been in decades. No entity currently inside Iraq has willingness and the capability to successfully invade Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia unlike Saddam.

Most of the planets oil reserves are located in the Persian Gulf and the seizure or sabotage of such reserves would create a worldwide economic depression worse than the 1930s with terrible consequences around the globe including in the United States. Massive unemployment, the inability to buy gas or food because of an unbelievable rise in prices of both. Were not just talking about some natural resource, were talking about society being able to survive. Energy is the blood of the global economy. Without it, our society cannot survive. Sources of oil in Russia and elsewhere are to small to compensate for the loss of Persian Gulf oil, hence US Security policy in the Persian Gulf for the past 60 years. Its actually 10 times more expensive to extract oil in Siberia than it is in Saudi Arabia.

 

[STING2]

it's amazing how predictably you follow the party line of blame the Left/Democrats whenever idiotic military missions result in disaster and embarass the forces you claim to love.

anyway, to dispell more of your myths:

[q]WASHINGTON — In another sign of Republican unease with the president's Iraq policies, a third GOP senator expressed support Thursday for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq under certain conditions.

Sen. Olympia J. Snowe announced she would sponsor a bill to require American commanders to plan a withdrawal within 120 days of the bill's enactment, unless the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks.

"The Iraq government needs to understand that our commitment is not infinite," said Snowe, a moderate from Maine who frequently departs from the party line.

President Bush has insisted that Congress not impose any limits on his conduct of the four-year-old war. But Snowe has taken issue with that view.

"It is our business as well," she said Thursday.

Snowe is not backing a Senate Democratic plan approved last month that would require the president to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days and would set a nonbinding goal of complete withdrawal by March.

But that plan did draw the support of two GOP senators, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon H. Smith of Oregon. [/q]

the GOP wants out. sure, they're distinguishing themselves from some of the Democrats, but that's merely a political gesture. they want off this sinking ship. and there will be more Republicans.


[q]But if your ignorate of that history and think that the conflict with Saddam all of sudden started in late 2002, then your simply not understanding the full range of issues facing the United States in regards to Saddam.[/q]

and for you, the history of Iraq started in 1980.

and that's why the removal of Saddam Hussein was a bad idea -- it was done by people like you who believe the US can do anything it wants, history be damned, will of the conquored people be damned, rest of the world be damned, history be damned, planning be damned, reason be damned.

you've shit the bed, now lie in it.

and i'll post this, but i think this is the last time i'll respond to you in this thread. if others can tune out the above lunacy that gets soldiers killed, i should be able to as well.

Ok, so questioning Democrats proposals is now blaming them? Wow, a 3rd Republican Senator fearing their election potential in 2008 is lining up with Democrats, what a surprise.

Again, none of that is an answer to the important questions not being answered by Democrats in regards to the pre-mature withdrawal they propose for Iraq.

The removal of Saddam came after 12 YEARS, 12 YEARS, of attempting other ways of protecting US security in the region without actually going to war. Unfortunately, the containment regime fell apart. The President successfully proposed a new UN resolution to authorize military action and got unanimous approval from the Security Council. The occupation of Iraq by the coalition has been approved by the United Nations every year since that time!

It is not an example of a President doing anything he wants, and the American people expressed their support for the policy by re-electing him in November 2004 by the first majority any President has received since 1988. History, planning or reasoning are not something most Democrats in congress have offered at any point on Iraq over the past 5 years.

Withdrawal, as Democrats in congress plan it, is currently the way they plan to win a domestic election, not a serious policy proposal designed to insure vital US, regional, or global security.

 

[Irvine511]

... and the thread goes downhill with the same posts that have been appearing since 2004.

 

[deep]

"There are important areas of progress in Iraq, and we should recognize them.

First, we must recognize that we have few good options in Iraq and that we are dealing with dynamics that lie mostly beyond our control.

I do not like restricting our war policy with conditions or timelines.

If the war continues to lose support from the American people, the limited options we have today will vanish."

In Iraq, All Terribly Familiar

By Chuck Hagel
Sunday, April 22, 2007; B01

Last weekend, along with Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), I completed my fifth trip to Iraq, and I am frustrated and worried. We are still risking the lives of our troops without giving them a realistic policy worthy of their sacrifices. To me, as a Vietnam veteran, that feels terribly familiar.

If success were simply a matter of the determination and ability of U.S. troops and civil servants, we would have already created a secure and stable Iraq. But unfortunately, the reality is that after more than four years, America remains the country's occupying power. Iraq's future will be determined by Iraqis, who, I hope, will reach a political accommodation -- but America is still making the major decisions and taking the lead militarily in most critical areas of the country. We can continue to help buy time for the Iraqi government -- but that time is running out.

The signs are everywhere. Key Shiite leaders told me that they remain deeply skeptical of Sunni intentions. They derided as "appeasement" constructive attempts to reintegrate select ex-Baath Party officials into public life and the government. Shiite and Kurdish leaders openly suggested that Iraq simply pursue what's known as "the 80/20 solution" -- meaning that the Kurds and Shiites, who make up some 80 percent of the population, would run the country without regard for the minority Sunnis, who had grown accustomed to dominating Iraq. Almost no one in Baghdad was talking about using new provincial elections this year to help bring the Sunnis into the national government. The governor of Anbar province, al-Qaeda's base in Iraq, agreed that security had improved recently but raised concerns that his province still gets almost no assistance from the central government in Baghdad. That has left citizens in his province without jobs, electricity and potable water, even as open sewers spill filth into the streets.

There are important areas of progress in Iraq, and we should recognize them. In Anbar province, for example, U.S. military leaders highlighted the significant success they have had in lowering the number of attacks by al-Qaeda. The military has successfully engaged tribal leaders who have provided informal governance there for hundreds of years. The U.S. military has also succeeded in helping double the size of the Iraqi forces in the province. Whether this progress can be sustained or is temporary will be up to the Iraqis.

If the good news is mixed, the bad news is downright troubling. Within the past two weeks, hundreds of Iraqis were slaughtered in Baghdad, the Iraqi Parliament's cafeteria was hit by a suicide bomber, and a historic Baghdad bridge over the Tigris River was destroyed. Ominously, these increased acts of violence occurred in the area where the United States and Iraq have deployed 80,000 security forces.

So what do we do?

We must start by understanding what's really happening in Iraq. According to the National Intelligence Estimate released in February, the conflict has become a "self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis" and also includes "extensive Shia-on-Shia violence." This means that Iraq is being consumed by sectarian warfare, much of it driven by Shiite or Sunni militias -- not al-Qaeda terrorists. Yes, there are admirers of Osama bin Laden in the country, including a full-blown al-Qaeda branch. But terrorists are not the core problem; Sunni-Shiite violence is. The Bush administration's rhetoric has not been nearly clear enough on this key point.

American occupation cannot stop a civil war in Iraq. Our military, superb as it is, can only do so much. The only lasting answer to Iraq's anguish will come from a political resolution. There will be no military solution in Iraq.

So how can America influence the Iraqis to reconcile their differences -- at least enough to form some kind of responsible government?

First, we must recognize that we have few good options in Iraq and that we are dealing with dynamics that lie mostly beyond our control.

Second, we must do all we can to encourage a comprehensive regional security framework, which includes engaging Syria and Iran. The regional security conference next month in Egypt is an opportunity we must not miss. We cannot solve the problems in Iraq by ourselves. We will have to work more closely with our Middle East allies than ever before, and that means addressing the nearly universal perception in the Middle East that we are imposing our will on the region for our own purposes.

To get more help from our regional friends, we must also have Middle Eastern countries see the Iraqi government as credible, not a U.S. puppet. And to get our regional strategy right, we must clearly recognize the depth of the Sunni-Shiite split and factor it into our Middle East policy and relationships. If we do not, the region could explode into ethnic and religious conflict.

Third, and closer to home, the administration and Congress must untangle themselves from the debate over funding our continued involvement in Iraq. The Iraqis must be jolted into understanding that America's continued commitment of troops and money is not open-ended. Significantly, American leaders in Iraq told me that they believed the debate on this issue in Congress had actually helped them get Iraqi leaders to grasp this point.

I do not like restricting our war policy with conditions or timelines. They are blunt instruments in an area of policy that requires flexibility. But they are some of the few levers Congress has when the majority of Congress and the American people have lost confidence in the president's policy.

We are at a crossroads at home. One option is that Congress can pass and the president can sign a war-funding bill that gives our troops the resources they need and places responsible conditions on that funding that will press the Iraqi government to perform and make the tough choices. President Bush should not see this as a threat from Congress but as a reasonable progression of events after four bloody and costly years.

The other option is that the president can veto the funding bill, Congress can overplay its hand, and both sides can get locked into a political standoff -- with U.S. troops caught in the middle. This would not produce constructive pressure on the Iraqi government to reconcile its differences, and it would ensure that the United States would remain trapped in Iraq, doing ever-greater damage to our force structure and military capabilities. The longer we are bogged down in Iraq, the more difficult and painful it will be to get out. And the deeper we are bogged down in Iraq, the fewer resources we have to devote to the many other important challenges facing America, especially in Afghanistan but also elsewhere around the globe and here at home.

If the war continues to lose support from the American people, the limited options we have today will vanish. The president will be left with a bitter few allies in our party, and we will be forced to withdraw from Iraq in a way that greatly damages U.S. interests in the Middle East and leaves the world far more dangerous than it is today. Forging a bipartisan consensus now that places responsible conditions on U.S. war funding could forestall a time when we have no options. The Baker-Hamilton report could have been the base for that bipartisan consensus.

I came home from my fifth trip to Iraq with one enduring impression. The Iraqi government must make the tough choices now to produce political reconciliation. If there is no such reconciliation in Iraq, there will be no progress -- no matter how many American lives we lose and how much American money we give. We will have squandered our resources and efforts, undermined our interests in the Middle East and, however unintentionally, produced a more dangerous world.

Chuck Hagel, a Republican, is a U.S. senator

 

[deep]

the American people expressed their support for the policy by re-electing him in November 2004 by the first majority any President has received since 1988.

You may or may not get this,
but here goes.

Using that convoluted statement to support your arguments,
may lead one to believe that the rest of your examples are just as worthless.

 

[STING2]

"There are important areas of progress in Iraq, and we should recognize them.

First, we must recognize that we have few good options in Iraq and that we are dealing with dynamics that lie mostly beyond our control.

I do not like restricting our war policy with conditions or timelines.

If the war continues to lose support from the American people, the limited options we have today will vanish."

I'll never forget when Chuck Hagel went on CNN during the US intervention in Kosovo to announce that the United States should disengage from that conflict because the Russians had just sent 7 warships into the Adriatic Sea and that if we did not disengage we would soon be involved in World War III. There is a good chance I would vote for Hillary Clinton over Chuck Hagel if Chuck was the Republican nominee.

As far as Chuck Hagel's article, he should realize that it is unlikely for any country in Iraq's condition in May 2003 to be brought so quickly into a condition of stability and prosperity in a few short years that no coalition troops would be required to be on the ground there. America is also the occupying power in Afghanistan. America is still taking the lead militarily in Afghanistan. Time is only an issue with Iraq at the moment because of the current swing in public opinion against the war, but staying in Iraq to bring stability to the country, where Al Quada is active, is a higher priority than the same mission in Afganistan, where there has been little or no Al Quada attacks for years.

According to the US military, 90% of the sectarian violence still takes place within 30 miles of Baghdad. The casualty levels and area of violence are nothing compared to what is seen in an actual civil war like Rawanda or Bosnia, or even Afghanistan in the early 1990s. Nationbuilding, Counterinsurgency, conflict resolution all require military, economic and political components to succeed, and Chuck mistakenly like most Democrats divides this into some either or situation when its success in all of these different areas that is required. A political solution will never last without a military element to help sustain and protect it. Economic development must follow as well, or else it will undermine any security achievement or political agreement. No one has ever suggested that there is a purely military solution in Iraq, but there will be no solution at all without a military element. The United States has succeeded in ending Civil Wars in Bosnia and kosovo, but it would have been impossible to do so without the US military!

There is nothing wrong with talking to Iran and Syria, but even if they were serious about helping Iraq, there is little they could actually do to help the situation.

Threatening the Iraqi government in the long run is not going to produce results which our going to take years to achieve not months. The Iraqi government is far from being able to make miracles happen, and the United States should not be deluded into thinking that threatening to suddenly leave will bring about a sudden reversal on politically deadlocked issues. The Iraqi government is still 4 years away from having a military force with the size and capabilities needed to provide for its own security, and will likely require even more time to build its own logistical base to support that military. Progress is important, but you can't expect Iraqi's to do things in some arbitrary period of time that is simply impossible and based more on US politics at home and not the realities on the ground in Iraq. Political reconciliation is vital in Iraq, but its never going to happen on some time table based on US domestic politics. Success in Iraq is going to require many more years of sustained US engagement full of victory's and setbacks.