in case you thought Patraeus was apolitical ...

[Irvine511]

Krauthammer is doing exactly what he's paid to do. tow the line, and keep us distracted -- the problem in Iraq is Al-Qaeda! -- from what's the central issue here: a civil war that will likely spread throughout the middle east.

you'll notice that we've really, really, really lowered the goalposts, and Krauthammer's attempts at triumphalism -- Petraeus answered questions! -- is pathetically weak. we're trying to salvage what we can, as he even admits, and he's doing as much as he can to shift blame for this debacle on Democrats, even though this has been a Republican war from start to finish.

and Krauthammer doesn't even bother with the central question: has "the surge" achieved it's stated goals, which is to bring about political change through creating more stability.

the answer is NO.

by any standard, the surge, and Petraeus, have failed.

 

[AEON]

by any standard, the surge, and Petraeus, have failed.

C'mon - even Democrats agree the Surge has worked militarily, even in some small degree. They seem to be arguing that this has not translated into political gains.

 

[AEON]

Where is the passion to bring our troops home from Kosovo? Where is the outrage? Where are the parades? We have been there since 1999.

 

[Irvine511]

C'mon - even Democrats agree the Surge has worked militarily, even in some small degree. They seem to be arguing that this has not translated into political gains.

NO! this is the big misconception.

Bush stated, in January, that the goal of the surge was to bring about POLITICAL change through increased stability.

there hasn't been any political change, in fact, it's gotten worse over 2007.

there's no discussion or argument about it.

 

[Irvine511]

Where is the passion to bring our troops home from Kosovo? Where is the outrage? Where are the parades? We have been there since 1999.

are 120 American kids dying a month in Kosovo?

 

[AEON]

are 120 American kids dying a month in Kosovo?

So, if less American were dying a month you would support the Iraq war?

 

[joyfulgirl]

Having spent some time this week with two independent unembedded journalists recently home from Iraq, getting the kind of first person information that makes me want to cover my ears and eyes and curl up in the fetal postion and never hear anything about it again, the notion that the surge is working would be completely laughable were it not so utterly tragic.

 

[AEON]

NO! this is the big misconception.

Bush stated, in January, that the goal of the surge was to bring about POLITICAL change through increased stability.

there hasn't been any political change, in fact, it's gotten worse over 2007.

there's no discussion or argument about it.

I seem to recall that the goal was security first, then political stability would follow. You have to allow some time for the gains in security to translate into political success.

 

[AEON]

two independent unembedded journalists .

Would love to see some background here

 

[Irvine511]

So, if less American were dying a month you would support the Iraq war?

this is getting frustrating.

Americans are dying because there's a civil war over there. when we toppled Saddam -- because he was just such a threat and a menace -- we unleashed hundreds of years of ethnic hatred. it has nothing to do with X amount of soldiers dying, it has everything to do with the fact that we shouldn't be there in the first place, and even if we are there, there's no measurable goal or endpoint or vision of what "victory" looks like. and the Bushies know this too -- notice Bush says the word "victory" about as often these days as he says "Osama Bin Laden."

 

[Irvine511]

I seem to recall that the goal was security first, then political stability would follow. You have to allow some time for the gains in security to translate into political success.

it's been 9 months.

the surge will have to end by March of 2008 because the US military cannot sustain it any longer.

and there's been nothing to speak of politically. nothing. and that was the goal.

how much longer do we keep pursuing a strategy that is demonstrably not working?

 

[A_Wanderer]

it's been 9 months.

the surge will have to end by March of 2008 because the US military cannot sustain it any longer.

and there's been nothing to speak of politically. nothing. and that was the goal.

how much longer do we keep pursuing a strategy that is demonstrably not working?

What is the alternative strategy that has been proposed?

 

[Irvine511]

What is the alternative strategy that has been proposed?

phased withdrawal that begins now.

redeployment to Kurdistan and Anbar to manage from afar.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Would love to see some background here

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13539

 

[AEON]

phased withdrawal that begins now.

redeployment to Kurdistan and Anbar to manage from afar.

Isn't that what Bush just announced?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Isn't that what Bush just announced?

No.

 

[AEON]

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13539

hmmmm.....not exactly what I would consider objective reporting.

 

[namkcuR]

Did you just say 'Isn't that what Bush just announced'?

NO.

Bush announced a sort of phased withdrawal with the goal of getting troop levels down to pre-surge levels.

It should be phased withdrawal with the goal of getting MOST or ALL of our forces OUT of there. Period.

 

[joyfulgirl]

hmmmm.....not exactly what I would consider objective reporting.

Why don't you read what they have to say and then decide? If by "not objective" you mean they see things that don't jive with what the administration feeds us so therefore they're critical of the administration, you're right. If you mean they're paid to put a certain slant on things, you're wrong.

What do you consider objective reporting?

 

[anitram]

This entire discussion is pointless in a sense because everyone who has even two brain cells to rub together knows that this war is over in the most important way - it's just a matter of time before you start drawing back your troops. It's over. It's no longer politically viable, the public support is gone, and the political process (yes, the election) will be the final nail in the coffin. That is what makes this all the more tragic: the fact is many people have foreseen this ending for a long time, the surge accomplished nothing politically, and what it achieved militarily is temporary because you can't and won't maintain this troop level in Iraq.

It's amounting to a lot of theoretical arguing, because really, intellectually speaking, this war is over. The physical presence on the ground has a definite, if undefined, end in sight.

 

[Infinity]

AEON, I see you haven't replied to my post yet, so let me repost it here for you.

I'm guessing you didn't notice the sarcasm when I asked that.

But I forgot some countries. What about Cuba and Venezuela. And how can I forget Iran??

What about Saudi Arabia? Here is a quote from wikipedia:

"The Basic Law of Government adopted in 1992 declared that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the sons and grandsons of the first king, Abd Al Aziz Al Saud. It also claims that the Qur'an is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of Islamic law (Sharia)"

And weren't most of the 9/11 hijackers Saudi?

So we have to invade them too! I know it sounds silly right? Saudi Arabia are our friends so how can we invade them? But that is exactly the reason we should, because they are our friends and they need our "help" in installing a democracy.

EDIT: And I also forgot Sudan.

Okay AEON, here is our list of countries to invade:

-Pakistan
-North Korea
-Iran
-Cuba
-Venezuela
-Saudi Arabia
-Sudan
-China?: You say they are making progress so bombing them is not necessary. Why do you think they are making progress? Just because they have a booming economy and are our biggest trading partner doesn't mean they are making progress on the democracy front.

How great would it be if we lent a helping hand to all of these nations by destroying them and rebuilding them?

 

[anitram]

There are probably at least a half a dozen more African countries you could add to that.

And Burma.

 

[A_Wanderer]

America wasn't destroying the rubble of all those countries for over a decade beforehand.

 

[Infinity]

There are probably at least a half a dozen more African countries you could add to that.

And Burma.

Yea you are right. But I thought I'd just start with those to see what the neo-cons have to say about that.

 

[phillyfan26]

1. I know of a few Southerners circa 1861 that would answer "yes"

2. By somehow thinking that the Middle East is incapable of democracy.

3) The entire Global War on Terror is about the safety of our country and democracies around the world. Petraeus is in one theater out of many.

4) In Iraq we are indeed fighting al-Queda, GWOT, and preserving US safety. The president and the congress are the right people to speak about the overall success GWOT, not Petraeus. I don't see why this is so difficult for people to understand.

A civil war is a long way from invading another country.

Democracy isn't the perfect system, and most people agree that it's not. There has never been. There are differing thoughts on what is. Just because democracy has worked doesn't mean it's the and all be all of government. Personally, you and I think it's the best yet. But that's not how it works.

And how does Iraq relate to the War on Terror and al-Qaeda?

 

[phillyfan26]

C'mon - even Democrats agree the Surge has worked militarily, even in some small degree. They seem to be arguing that this has not translated into political gains.

It's all about the political goals, Bush has stated this.

 

[phillyfan26]

Isn't that what Bush just announced?

Bush is merely taking out the EXTRA troops that he added for the surge.

 

[A_Wanderer]

A civil war is a long way from invading another country.

Democracy isn't the perfect system, and most people agree that it's not. There has never been. There are differing thoughts on what is. Just because democracy has worked doesn't mean it's the and all be all of government. Personally, you and I think it's the best yet. But that's not how it works.

And how does Iraq relate to the War on Terror and al-Qaeda?

Firstly I do not think that you can point to Baathist Iraq as a model of consensual government, Hussein was long way from being a benign dictator (the opinion polls from Iraqis show that the majority approve that Saddam is removed and that life in Iraq is better without him in power - while at the same time disaproving of US presence in the country and terrorism). The situation that Iraq was in through the 1990's where it was boxed in militarily to enforce a regime of sanctions was bad; it cannot be matched to countries such as Pakistan or China where that program of destruction had been pursued.

As Sting2 would point out the violence in Iraq is concentrated around Baghdad, in the absence of foreign forces most of the country (at least the ethnically seperate parts) can be peaceful). Any policy for withdrawing troops should be matched with one that can achieve a stability in Iraq without a bloodbath - now if that is a referendum on partition, installing a dictator (which wouldn't surprise given the langauge coming from both US parties ) or leaving the Iraqi government to seek regional partners in Iran and Syria that should be the focus of the discussion. But it isn't because Iraqs long term situation is in nobodies political interest because as soon as foreign forces leave it's not their problem or responsibility for what happens.

 

[phillyfan26]

The best question of the night. And I admit - other than resources, and I can't think of a good reason. (with the exception of China - which is showing progress)

That's the single stupidest thing I've ever read in this forum. I recognize that this might be stepping too far, and I apologize if it is, but really, to suggest that we should bomb every nation that you don't like the politics of because it's not a democracy is the single most absurd statement I've heard here in FYM.

I mean, do you realize the consequences of that? Do you realize how many would die? How many would hate America? How dangerous this would be for our country? How many countries would turn on us? How many would refuse to accept democracy? How totalitarian (i.e.: undemocratic) it is?

I could go on and on.

America is not safer because of Iraq. We are not making progress in Iraq. We are not combating terrorists because, and read this carefully, do not affiliate themselves with a country. This isn't like WWII, with the Japanese being the enemy. This isn't one country. These are sects. Often religious sects. Iraq doesn't make sense in this way. You can't fight countries to fight terrorism. It doesn't work.

 

[A_Wanderer]

States sponser terrorists all the time; USA in Latin America, Saudi Arabia in Afghanistan, Iran in Lebanon. Saddam Hussein had no problem keeping Abu Nidal in Iraq (of course having him killed when he could prove a liability).