yo, Dread.
clear out some of your old PMs.
i gots something i want to say to you.
Done:O)
yo, Dread.
clear out some of your old PMs.
i gots something i want to say to you.
some of us have been saying this since 2004.
i think you're one of those -- you realize the situation in the Persian Gulf and Iraq, and yet reject the false choice that STING and the administration presented us with.
Waiting longer to remove Saddam would have only cost more American lives and made the occupation more difficult.
Remember, Al Qaeda was not a factor in Iraq until after we invaded. Had we invaded with a larger force capable of securing more of the country, Al Qaeda would not have been able to work as effectively.
This is nothing but pure speculation on your part, and I for one seriously question the assertion that it would have cost us more American lives and made the occupation more difficult. Overthrowing Saddam was relatively easy, and I don't see a few months or even a year giving him time to significantly ramp up an already eroding military. He simply was not the threat he was made out to be before the war.
As for it making the occupation more difficult, I completely disagree. Had we waited longer, read the reports and given more weight to those who said we would need a larger force in order to occupy the country, [had we decided to invade anyway after looking at the facts...] the occupation would most likely have been easier. Remember, Al Qaeda was not a factor in Iraq until after we invaded. Had we invaded with a larger force capable of securing more of the country, Al Qaeda would not have been able to work as effectively.
just to add, AQ was a factor *because* we invaded.
and i agree. if you were going to invade Iraq and occupy it effectively, you would have needed 450,000 troops or more.
but Rumsfeld was intent upon demonstrating to the world that we could send a small-ish amount of troops and knock out any government, anywhere, and be done with it and out of there.
Well, what does Charles Krauthamer mean by "seize the fruits" of war?
^Thank you, Yolland. Somehow I knew you'd come to my rescue!
Reading the following, Sting, I think you would actually AGREE with Krauthamer, no?
McCain, like George Bush, envisions the United States seizing the fruits of victory from a bloody and costly war by establishing an extensive strategic relationship that would not only make the new Iraq a strong ally in the war on terror but would also provide the U.S. with the infrastructure and freedom of action to project American power regionally, as do U.S. forces in Germany, Japan and South Korea.
For example, we might want to retain an air base to deter Iran, protect regional allies and relieve our naval forces, which today carry much of the burden of protecting the Persian Gulf region, thus allowing redeployment elsewhere.
Any Iraqi leader would prefer a more pliant American negotiator because all countries -- we've seen this in Germany, Japan and South Korea -- want to maximize their own sovereign freedom of action while still retaining American protection.
The emphasis is on staying in Iraq long term, at least as I read it. If you're honest, this is your position, and that of McCain as well, no?
The question is: Is this the position of the Iraqi government as well? I tend to think not, at least not based on what has been said recently. Krauthamer says that Iraqi leaders will want to "maximize their own sovereign freedom of action while still retaining American protection." If Iraqi leaders have said that they want American protection of this kind for years into the future, I'm not aware of it.
Even if you sent every Army, Marine, and National Guard combat brigade to Iraq that was available in 2003, its unlikely you would have a number that large or greater, plus the forces would all have to remain in country indefinitely, with no extra brigades that could be rotated in to give brigades already there 6 months or a year break from occupation work.
Rumsfeld wanted a similar type of force that was used to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, a country with the same size population in Iraq, was 50% larger in area, and had a long recent history of insurgency and a population experienced at one. Despite the fact that Rumsfeld's strategy worked better than anyone realized it would in Afghanistan, he essentially got vetoed by General Tommy Franks on the size of the invasion force for Iraq. The force that did go in was much larger than the one Rumsfeld had initially thought about sending in.
^Thank you, Yolland. Somehow I knew you'd come to my rescue!
Reading the following, Sting, I think you would actually AGREE with Krauthamer, no?
McCain, like George Bush, envisions the United States seizing the fruits of victory from a bloody and costly war by establishing an extensive strategic relationship that would not only make the new Iraq a strong ally in the war on terror but would also provide the U.S. with the infrastructure and freedom of action to project American power regionally, as do U.S. forces in Germany, Japan and South Korea.
For example, we might want to retain an air base to deter Iran, protect regional allies and relieve our naval forces, which today carry much of the burden of protecting the Persian Gulf region, thus allowing redeployment elsewhere.
Any Iraqi leader would prefer a more pliant American negotiator because all countries -- we've seen this in Germany, Japan and South Korea -- want to maximize their own sovereign freedom of action while still retaining American protection.
The emphasis is on staying in Iraq long term, at least as I read it. If you're honest, this is your position, and that of McCain as well, no?
The question is: Is this the position of the Iraqi government as well? I tend to think not, at least not based on what has been said recently. Krauthamer says that Iraqi leaders will want to "maximize their own sovereign freedom of action while still retaining American protection." If Iraqi leaders have said that they want American protection of this kind for years into the future, I'm not aware of it.
hence, "indefinite occupation."
you can put as much lipstick on this pig as you want, but that's what it is. and that is why "withdrawal" needs to be the framework under which future Iraq policy goes forward. because, like i said, Muslims just *love* to be occupied.
which is why allies matter.
at least, today, they're waving American flags in Berlin, and not burning the
Even if you were to combine what Europe was able to contribute to the first Gulf War, the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan, you would not be much closer to that number that has just been pulled out of the air.
No, that is not my position, nor the position of George Bush or John McCain. The United States does not need to have bases in Iraq in order to project power through out the region. Having an air base just up the road from the ones in Kuwait would not provide the US with any new real capability in that area. Most fixed wing combat aircraft providing close air support for US combat Units in Iraq fly out of Kuwait or carriers in the Persian Gulf.
The United States wants there to be a stable Iraq, that does not pose a threat to its neighbors, does not harbor or support international terrorist. It wants to have good relations with the new Iraqi government and is willing to do what is necessary to help Iraq provide for its internal and external security.
The Iraqi national security advisor stated that once the Iraqi military has taken over security in all 18 provinces(they currently have done that in 10) that they would then have US forces still in cities redeploy to rural area's, but remain in the country for the next 3 to 5 years with the security situation reviewed ever 6 months. In 2007, the Iraqi National Security Advisor mentioned that he thought that the Iraqi military would be ready to handle all internal security functions by 2012, but would still need help in the area of providing external security until 2018. The estimates of those dates may have sped up though do to the rapid success of the surge, and the growing capability of the Iraqi military over the past year.
As long as Iraq does not become a security threat to the region again, is able to provide for its internal and external security, is not itself endangered by other forces in the region, it would not be necessary for the United States to base any forces there. The same can be said of Afghanistan which for some reason you do not pose the same question about the future of US troops in that country. Bush's initial plans on Iraq had over half of US troops withdrawn by the summer of 2004, and all but 5,000 by December of 2006, which might have been possible had the insurgency and its impact on the situation not developed.
Iraqi leaders have always stated that they want US troops to remain on the ground as long as the conditions warrent it. Afghanistan's leaders have stated the same thing.
Is the Surge Working?
No, but the propaganda touting it sure is.
by Justin Raimondo
Barack Obama is getting plenty of flak for not acknowledging that he was wrong about the "surge," i.e. the wisdom of escalating a war we should never have started in the first place – and this is being compared to John McCain's stubborn refusal to admit that we need to get out (although it appears McCain isn't against timetables anymore …). In any case, the whole question of the "surge" is really just another one of those exercises in irrelevance that the American media use to fill the vast void of the cable news universe. As Obama points out, anyone could have predicted that the sudden infusion of large numbers of American troops would reduce violence, albeit temporarily. So where does that leave us?
Well, as Antiwar.com reported yesterday (Monday): "87 Iraqis Killed, 288 Wounded." Okay, so that was an unusual day, in which four suicide bombers – all of them, interestingly enough, female – took the opportunity to strike at majority Shi'ite targets, and one Kurdish site in the northern city of Kirkuk. Yet if you examine the pattern of the ongoing conflict – as painstakingly compiled and written up by the invaluable Margaret Griffis – large-scale explosions of violence aren't all that rare. Indeed, they occur with clock-like regularity, usually a week or two after relative quiet in which the daily toll amounts to two or three Iraqis killed and/or wounded.
Yes, but you have to admit – avers my imaginary interlocutor, the skeptical reader – that the situation on the ground has gotten better.
Well, no, I don't admit any such thing, because one has to ask: better than what? Better than before the war? Surely not – and that's the only standard that has real meaning to the Iraqis. More than anything, they want a return to normalcy – and a low-level civil war punctuated by eruptions of shocking violence is anything but normal.
Ah. So you disagree with Krauthamer then. It would have been easier if you'd just said so.
So Krauthamer is wrong in his suggestion that McCain agrees with the idea of being in Iraq over the long term? He misunderstands McCain's position, correct?
Iraqis: Deal close on plan for US troops to leave
Aug 7, 3:35 PM (ET)
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq and the U.S. are near an agreement on all American combat troops leaving Iraq by October 2010, with the last soldiers out three years after that, two Iraqi officials told The Associated Press on Thursday. U.S. officials, however, insisted no dates had been agreed.
The proposed agreement calls for Americans to hand over parts of Baghdad's Green Zone - where the U.S. Embassy is located - to the Iraqis by the end of 2008. It would also remove U.S. forces from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, according to the two senior officials, both close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and familiar with the negotiations.
The officials, who spoke separately on condition of anonymity because the talks are ongoing, said all U.S. combat troops would leave Iraq by October 2010, with the remaining support personnel gone "around 2013." The schedule could be amended if both sides agree - a face-saving escape clause that would extend the presence of U.S. forces if security conditions warrant it.
U.S. acceptance - even tentatively - of a specific timeline would represent a dramatic reversal of American policy in place since the war began in March 2003.
Both Iraqi and American officials agreed that the deal is not final and that a major unresolved issue is the U.S. demand for immunity for U.S. soldiers from prosecution under Iraqi law.
Throughout the conflict, President Bush steadfastly refused to accept any timetable for bringing U.S. troops home. Last month, however, Bush and al-Maliki agreed to set a "general time horizon" for ending the U.S. mission.
Bush's shift to a timeline was seen as a move to speed agreement on a security pact governing the U.S. military presence in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.
Iraq's Shiite-led government has been holding firm for some sort of withdrawal schedule - a move the Iraqis said was essential to win parliamentary approval.
The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad declined to comment on details of the talks. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nangtongo said the negotiations were taking place "in a constructive spirit" based on respect for Iraqi sovereignty.
In Washington, U.S. officials acknowledged that some progress has been made on the timelines for troop withdrawals but that the immunity issue remained a huge problem. One senior U.S. official close to the discussion said no dates have been agreed upon.
They spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations have not been finished.
But the Iraqis insisted the dates had been settled preliminarily between the two sides, although they acknowledged that nothing is final until the entire negotiations have been completed.
One Iraqi official said persuading the Americans to accept a timetable was a "key achievement" of the talks and that the government would seek parliamentary ratification as soon as the deal is signed.
But differences over immunity could scuttle the whole deal, the Iraqis said. One of the officials described immunity as a "minefield" and said each side was sticking by its position.
One official said U.S. negotiator David Satterfield told him that immunity for soldiers was a "red line" for the United States. The official said he replied that issue was "a red line for us too."
The official said the Iraqis were willing to grant immunity for actions committed on American bases and during combat operations - but not a blanket exemption from Iraqi law.
The Iraqis also want American forces hand over any Iraqi they detain. The U.S. insists that detainees must be "ready" for handover, which the Iraqi officials assume means the Americans want to interrogate them first.
As the talks drag on, American officials said the Bush administration is losing patience with the Iraqis over the negotiations, which both sides had hoped to wrap up by the end of July.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and al-Maliki had a long and "very difficult" phone conversation about the situation on Wednesday during which she pressed the Iraqi leader for more flexibility particularly on immunity, one U.S. senior official said.
"The sovereignty issue is very big for the Iraqis and we understand that. But we are losing patience," the official said. "The process needs to get moving and get moving quickly."
The official could not say how long the call lasted but said it was "not brief" and "tense at times."
In London, Britain's defense ministry said it is also in talks with Iraq's government over the role of British troops after the U.N. mandate runs out. Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently said that early next year Britain will reduce its troops in Iraq, now at about 4,100, and that Britain's role in the country will change fundamentally.
Iraq's position in the U.S. talks hardened after a series of Iraqi military successes against Shiite and Sunni extremists in Basra, Baghdad, Mosul and other major cities and after the rise in world oil prices flooded the country with petrodollars.
As the government's confidence rose, Iraqi officials believed they were in a strong negotiating position - especially with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, pledging to remove all combat forces within his first 16 months in office if security conditions allow.
Standing firm against the Americans also enhances al-Maliki's nationalist credentials, enabling him to appeal for support from Iraqis long opposed to the U.S. presence.
On Thursday, a spokesman for Muqtada al-Sadr said the Shiite cleric will call on his fighters to maintain a cease-fire against American troops - but may lift the order if the security agreement fails to contain a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.
The statement by Sheik Salah al-Obeidi came as al-Sadr planned to spell out details of a formula to reorganize his Mahdi Army militia by separating it into an unarmed cultural organization and elite fighting cells.
The announcement is expected during weekly Islamic prayer services on Friday.
"This move is meant to offer an incentive for the foreign forces to withdraw," al-Obeidi said. "The special cells of fighters will not strike against foreign forces until the situation becomes clear vis-a-vis the Iraq-U.S. agreement on the presence of American forces here."
Several cease-fires by al-Sadr have been key to a sharp decline in violence over the past year. But American officials still consider his militiamen a threat and have backed the Iraqi military in operations to try to oust them from their power bases in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.
game, set, match: Obama.
now that Bush and the Iraqis have endorsed Obama's timetable.
so the real issue comes down to who had the better judgment in 2002,
and who has better understood the facts on the ground that led one candidate to make the clear-minded prediction that a 18 month timetable was far more feasible and likely than the indefinite occupation for 10, 100, 1000 years.
Well, the withdrawal plan currently being discussed is conditions based. Obama's plan is time based. You should be able to understand the difference I think. Until there is a plan on the table that removes US troops from Iraq, regardless of conditions on the ground, you have nothing even remotely resembling Obama's or most Democratic plans on Iraq.
Under the current plan being discussed by the Iraqi's and the United States US forces would remain in Iraq indefinitely if the conditions grew worse and would only start to leave if conditions warrented it. If Obama is for keeping US combat brigades on the ground in Iraq as long as they are needed for security there, then he has abandoned his own plan and adopted the plan Bush has had since 2003. Bush's initial plan prior to the war had almost all US troops out by December 2006. That plan changed though because conditions on the ground warrented keeping and increasing the US troop levels in Iraq.
Well, you have one candidate who believes the United States would be safer with Saddam still in power in Iraq and one candidate who believes that Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the entire region, the United States and the world are safer because Saddam has been removed from power in Iraq. I think its obvious that history will find that Bush had better judgement on this issue.
Actually that would be game, set, match: Bush, if conditions on the ground continue to improve and allow for US forces to leave that rapidly.
nope. your distinction has no meaning because it's a deliberate and consistent distortion of Obama's position,
and it ignores the Bush/McCain position in Iraq that any firm commitment to a deadline for withdrawal -- which is now the plan itself -- is the same thing as surrender.
this new plan calls for parts of the Green Zone to be handed over by the end of 2008. it calls for removing US forces from Iraqi cities by June 20, 2009. these are hard-and-fast dates, and they are being forced by the Iraqis themselves.
Bush's initial plan had nothing to do with reality and to the 2006/7 Iraqi Civil War that the occupation provoked.
Obama is for removing US combat brigades so long as conditions warrant, which is a clear distinction you're ignoring and the new position of Bush and the Iraqi government.
the game has been changed, it's now called withdrawal, or "generalized time horizons," and you can dress it up anyway you like, but this is, as the article notes, without question: a dramatic reversal of American policy in place since the war began in March 2003.
everyone is glad that Saddam Hussein is dead. but how he got dead is a tragedy.
the US is still pretty much going to remain powerless to shape the future of Iraq if it does not occupy indefinitely, something it cannot afford and something that US citizens have no interest in doing.
Iraq remains perilous, it could change in an overnight coup
and it also, and most importantly, remains utterly and totally opaque. no one really knows what's going on inside Iraq, just like no one did during the 1990s and early 2000's, and no one ever will.
it's strained our European alliances
it's shifted resources away from Afghanistan and Pakistan,
it's destroyed the credibility of US intelligence
the core justification of the war was the WMDs -- a lie
we know that he was not nearly as murderous as the hundreds of thousands who have died these past 5 years or the millions-upon-millions of refugees
the torture and ethnic cleansing in the Rumsfeld-created post-invasion chaos is the equal of anything Saddam did.
we also now know that Saddam would have been a counterweight to the newly emboldened Iran,
and it only cost us $3 trillion!
Osama Bin Laden is utterly thrilled with what's happened.
Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied ; ly·ing/'lī-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English leogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavonic l?gati
intransitive senses
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive senses : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>
synonyms LIE , PREVARICATE , EQUIVOCATE , PALTER , FIB mean to tell an untruth. LIE is the blunt term, imputing dishonesty <lied about where he had been>. PREVARICATE softens the bluntness of LIE by implying quibbling or confusing the issue <during the hearings the witness did his best to prevaricate>. EQUIVOCATE implies using words having more than one sense so as to seem to say one thing but intend another <equivocated endlessly in an attempt to mislead her inquisitors>. PALTER implies making unreliable statements of fact or intention or insincere promises <a swindler paltering with his investors>. FIB applies to a telling of a trivial untruth <fibbed about the price of the new suit>.The administration did lie, and Strongbow is trying to prevaricate. The global argument that sting/stongbow makes is in essence a truth. The details of how the administration went about making the case, are filled with lies.
Cherrypicking - which we now know occured with the disciplining of intelligence units within the pentagon. Cherrypicking - from from reports created by the CIA which if read the global implications did not support invasion and using these reports to support a war by selective use of sentences within the report (The One Percent Doctrine).
On October 7, 2002 George Bush told the nation Saddam was an "imminent threat" to the security of the US, he completely LIED. Six days prior the CIA report which the president received said that Saddam Hussein was "NOT a THREAT". On October 4th, the Administration published a summary version of the report to be given to Congress known as the White Paper. This report given to our congress, to help them decide how to vote did not include the conclusion of the CIA that Saddam was not a threat.
THIS IS A LIE. Period. The gobal argument, that STING/STRONGBOW makes is an accurate one. There most definitely were reasons to go to war. However, there was no URGENCY in the time. There was no reason to rush into it, yet, this administration used LIES to make the case.
That is the embarrassing thing. They have damaged our reputation. The case that this administration LIED is an easy one to make. It is also easy to show to the public what happened to the careers of people in the intelligence community when they called bullshit.
It seems we operated from an "Ends justifies the means" point of view. And this is what damages our reputation and ability to be a leader in the world. When you operate from LIES people tend to mistrust you.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Saddam being a threat, an evil man, ect...blah blah blah Demoncrat.
It has to do with the fact that the case for war was built on LIES. Someone should be accountable for it.
No one lied and if one would actually just once go back and study the situation prior to Bush coming into office, they would have a much better grasp of the difficult situation the world was facing with Saddam still in control of Iraq.
Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied ; ly·ing/'lī-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English leogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavonic l�gati
intransitive senses
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive senses : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>
synonyms LIE , PREVARICATE , EQUIVOCATE , PALTER , FIB mean to tell an untruth. LIE is the blunt term, imputing dishonesty <lied about where he had been>. PREVARICATE softens the bluntness of LIE by implying quibbling or confusing the issue <during the hearings the witness did his best to prevaricate>. EQUIVOCATE implies using words having more than one sense so as to seem to say one thing but intend another <equivocated endlessly in an attempt to mislead her inquisitors>. PALTER implies making unreliable statements of fact or intention or insincere promises <a swindler paltering with his investors>. FIB applies to a telling of a trivial untruth <fibbed about the price of the new suit>.
‘In April and early May 2003, military forces found mobile trailers in Iraq. Although intelligence experts disputed the purpose of the trailers, administration officials repeatedly asserted that they were mobile biological weapons laboratories. In total, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice made 34 misleading statements about the trailers in 27 separate public appearances. Shortly after the mobile trailers were found, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency issued an unclassified white paper evaluating the trailers. The white paper was released without coordination with other members of the intelligence community, however. It was later disclosed that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. A former senior intelligence official reported that ‘only one of 15 intelligence analysts assembled from three agencies to discuss the issue in June endorsed the white paper conclusion.’