Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time of War...
Irvine511 said:
you thoroughly misunderstand what happens in a presidential election. while it is the biggest issue, it is not simply a referrendum on only the war, nor can it be used as a gauge on whether or not the war was right or wrong, or good strategy or bad strategy. i can be used as an indication as to the American people's *understanding* of the benefits of the war, but little else.
i'd also argue that the election wasn't about the war in Iraq, but the question of "who will keep you safe"? two different things, linked things, but different things. also, you underestimate the lack of appeal of John Kerry. basically, you've simplified the election -- a hugely complex thing -- into a piece of information you can wield to make an argument. it's simply bad reasoning, and exclamation points do little for your argument.
LBJ didn't run for re-election in 1968. he knew he wouldn't win, just as Bush would probably not win if the election were held today.
i'm not arguing that the removal of Saddam had benefits, and that there were costs if he were to stay in power.
what i am trying to get at, STING, is the fact that you are unwilling to concede the fact that the administration has messed up your war, that they are pulling out before the Iraqi army is ready (the mere presence of batillions means little if they can't fight worth a damn or drop their weapons and run), that it was sold to the American people under now laughably bad, cherry-picked intelligence, that there are global consequences to this war that might outweigh the consequences of keeping Saddam in power, that we are stretched thing while Iran and North Korea grow their nuclear capabilities and China makes mean faces at Taiwan.
it's this kind of blinkered vision that the administration is guilty of, and that has lead us into the mess in the first place.
again, my question is this: you point to the many good things that this war could have accomplished, yet you do not hold the administration accountable for it's failure to accomplish any of these goals.
and as anyone will tell you, it's not a country's first democratic election that matters. it's the country's second, and third, and forth election that matters.
War is such a big issue, that it sweeps many of the complexities of any presidential election to the side. The war was the biggest issue in the campaign and people had the opportunity to throw out George Bush 1) if they thought the invasion was the wrong course of action 2) if they thought Bush had mishandled the aftermath with the occupation. There is simply no better gauge of America's feelings about the war than the November 2004 election. No poll with less than 1,000 people would ever come close the the accuracy of a Presidential election with over 120 million people voting for who would be President for the next four years.
George Bush just won re-election 9 months ago. Since that time, Iraq has had its first free election in decades, has nearly developed a constitution, and now has a substantial military force. People claimed Bush would not win in 2004, so claims that he would not win now, especially with all the new accomplishments in Iraq and a stronger economy, run hollow.
I have already conceded that the administration has made some tactical mistakes in the war. But I can't concede that the administration has messed up the war or lossed the war. Those that make the claim that the administration has "failed" don't seem to understand how long it takes on average to achieve victory and success in such circumstances involving nation building, insurgency, and building a new Iraqi military force. The fact is, these things take longer than the brief 2 years that the country has been engaged in the conflict. Also, monthly casualty figures are a tiny fraction of the rate in the last longterm insurgency war the United States fought in Vietnam, so this too can't be used against the adminstration to claim that it has "failed".
The Democrats claims of failure by the Bush administration in the occupation begs the question, what would the Democrats have done differently and what would have been achieved in the same time frame of 2 years under their leadership. Nation Building is a complex and difficult task, and anyone who thinks Bush has failed is going to be hard pressed to prove that they could have accomplished more in such a small time frame under such conditions. Many of the Democrats said a January 30, 2005 election was too quick and would never happen, so there's one accomplishment we know would not of happened under Democratic leadership in the first couple of years.
The Iraqi military now has over 100 Battalions in uniform compared to just 1 Battalion a year ago. Of these 100 Battalions, 10 are considered as capable as any US Marine or US Army Battalion. By the summer of 2006, this number will grow, and by 2007 at the current rate, the Iraqi military will have 100 Battalions capable of fighting and dealing with all the same situations that US Battalions currently do.
More importantly is that the desire to fight for the new government and the new Iraq is widespread. Despite the fact that army recruiting centers are the #1 target of insurgent bombings, long lines outside these recruitment centers continue to persist. As much as you bad mouth the new Iraqi military, they have taken more casualties than the coalition forces combined and still continue to fight.
The central case for the war in Iraq still remains Saddam's failure to comply with multiple UN resolutions and to verifiably disarm of all WMD. It is a FACT, that Saddam never verifiably disarmed of 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard Gas, 500 pounds of Nerve Gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells. The only thing that is laughable or cherry picked are the Democrats attempts to criticize the administration with some supporting intelligence reports that indeed turned out not to be accurate, but were 1) NEVER the central case for war 2) such intelligence is NEVER 100% accurate.
I'd like for you to explain why it would have been better to keep Saddam in power in light of all the things that had happened in the previous 24 years with Saddam in power. What global consequences of the war outweigh the consequences of keeping Saddam in power?
As far as the US military being stretched thin, some facts are in order:
The United States currently has 88 Army, National Guard and Marine brigades.
17 of these Brigades are in Iraq
4 of these Brigades are in Afghanistan
3 Brigades are in Okinawa ready to respond to any
Chinese moves against Taiwan
1 Brigade in South Korea
1 Brigade in Kosovo
1 Brigade in Bosnia
TOTAL: 27 Brigades deployed in combat or important security roles.
The remaining 61 Brigades are mainly in the United States with a few brigades in Germany, Italy, Japan(mainland), Kuwait, and some other temporary spots. While some of these Brigades may have just recently returned from Iraq, Afghanistan or other security deployments, all 61 of these Brigades are available for deployment anywhere in the world including Iraq.
Of the 39 National Guard Brigades that make up the total, only 4 Brigades are currently deployed outside of the United States. It is true that the burden on active duty units is far greater than the national guard, but it is false that the overall United States ground forces have been stretched thin.
The United States currently has the forces it needs to respond to crises in Taiwan, Korea, or Iran despite the large deployment to Iraq. There are currently 61 Brigades that could be rushed to any of these places if a sudden crises warrented their deployment.
"again, my question is this: you point to the many good things that this war could have accomplished, yet you do not hold the administration accountable for it's failure to accomplish any of these goals."
No, I have listed the many good things that the war HAS accomplished, but recognize the tactical mistakes that have been made in the process. The administration has accomplished many of its goals: it has removed Saddam's regime from power, given Iraq its first free election in decades, facilited the writing of a new constitution and the development of a new government, revitalized many parts of Iraq that were neglected under Saddam, and has built a new Iraqi army now composed of 100 Battalions. Thats a hell of a lot to have accomplished in only 2 years in this part of the world.
"and as anyone will tell you, it's not a country's first democratic election that matters. it's the country's second, and third, and forth election that matters."
When these elections succeed, I have no doubt that the Democrats will come up with new reasons to explain why the war and occupation is a failure.
. I just wish people could start finding ways to solve problems without having to resort to wars to do so, too. But that's apparently too idealistic, I guess.
These facts are cute, but I can't believe what you're saying. Are you trying to suggest that the US in it's current military situation could go to war with another country???? Actually 2 more countries with your math. We could get rid of the whole "axis of evil"! (Another brilliant move by this administration). C'mon....you can't believe that the US is capable of war with another country. People are serving their second, third, and fourth tours in Iraq. The brigades that are in the United States CAME HOME from Afghanistan and Iraq and want to STAY ALIVE with their FAMILIES. They already served this country nobly. We can't just send them wherever. 
Is this a trick question? You only mention World War II once every other paragraph lately and yet ask this? When it's obvious that all four of the countries mentioned above played pivotal roles in that war...
