Life just gets worse in Iraq

[Irvine511]

Most Iraqi's do not wish for the USA to withdraw and there are thousands of Iraqi troops who are well equipped and reliable enough to impose order in the area's in which they operate. No, there are not nearly enough of them yet, but say that none exist is simply false.

After 3.5 years you have the following:

1. two successful democratic elections in which the majority of the population participated.
2. the passing of a constitution
3. Iraq's first elected government coming into office.
4. Over 300,000 military and police forces trained.
5. compromises between the various ethnic groups of Iraq including Sunni acceptence of Maliki as the new leader of the government when Jafferi was seen as unacceptable.
6. Iraqi military units that have performed very well in combat in various operations in Anbar province with little or no support from the US military.
7. The continued professionalism of the Iraqi military and non-sectarianism compared with police forces which have sometimes been caught in engaging in sectarian violence. The problems in the police forces are not seen anywhere near to that degree in the military.
8. Substantial GDP growth across the country.
9. Relative calm and peace in 13 of the 18 provinces of Iraq.
10. Polls in those provinces showing that "security" is not a top concern for the people that live there.
11. The distribution of humanitarian aid, electricity, and other services to many parts of Iraq that had often been denied such items for decades.
12. The standard of living of the average Iraqi is higher than that of the average person in Afghanistan, yet Iraqi's are perceived to be worse off than people in Afghanistan.

and yet, even Henry Kissinger (!!!) says that Iraq is not a nation "in the historic sense." 3,700 Iraqis were ethnically cleansed in November alone. this is not the violence that can be explained as growing pains. this is something totally different and has much more in common with, say, Darfur.

and i eagerly await your plan to help get the US economy off of Middle Eastern fossil fuels!

 

[STING2]

well, you're deliberately obfuscating the democrats position, but the more important point here is the fact that you've completley misunderstood the violence in Iraq. while "the insurgency" is certainly happy about a civil war, they are not the ones doing the fighting. in fact, Al Qaeda is extremely disorganized in Iraq and they only make up 2 to 3% of the enemy forces in Iraq. the other 97% of the combatants in the war (that has no gone on longer htan our involvement in WW2) are ordinary Iraqis now engaging in what must be termed ethnic cleansing.

Once again, the sectarian violence in Iraq is a creation of the Iraqi insurgents and terrorist. Yes, its true that now you do have individual neighborhoods in Baghdad fighting each other independently of either Sunni insurgents or Al Quada Terrorist or the Shia militia's, but the Iraqi insurgency is what created the situation in order to make the situation more difficult for the coalition and to put pressure on the domestic political front in order to force a premature pullout. Sunni insurgents still do engage in fighting designed to keep the sectarian violence going. Sunni insurgents and Shia militia's are not ordinary Iraqi's. The vast majority of Iraqi's are not engaged in any sort of violence at all.

 

[STING2]

and yet, even Henry Kissinger (!!!) says that Iraq is not a nation "in the historic sense." 3,700 Iraqis were ethnically cleansed in November alone. this is not the violence that can be explained as growing pains. this is something totally different and has much more in common with, say, Darfur.

and i eagerly await your plan to help get the US economy off of Middle Eastern fossil fuels!

90% of the sectarian killing happens in one area of Iraq, Baghdad. Its been helped along and fed by the Iraqi insurgency which created the situation in the first place. The Democrats have no plan at all to deal with it. Remember, their only plan is to move US troops out of the country as soon as possible.

Its not just the US economy that is dependent on Persian Gulf Oil, its the entire GLOBAL ECONOMY that is dependent on it. Even if you were magically able to get just the US economy off of using oil, it would not change the stakes at all really given the level of US trade and interdependence with the rest of the global economy which would still be using oil.

So when thinking about oil dependence, you have to think in terms of the entire planet, not just one country.

Until an alternative that is cheaper and more efficient than oil comes around, the planet is going to continue to use oil. Once it does come around, Business will pounce on it in order to reduce their cost and increase profits.

 

[Irvine511]

Once again, the sectarian violence in Iraq is a creation of the Iraqi insurgents and terrorist. Yes, its true that now you do have individual neighborhoods in Baghdad fighting each other independently of either Sunni insurgents or Al Quada Terrorist or the Shia militia's, but the Iraqi insurgency is what created the situation in order to make the situation more difficult for the coalition and to put pressure on the domestic political front in order to force a premature pullout. Sunni insurgents still do engage in fighting designed to keep the sectarian violence going. Sunni insurgents and Shia militia's are not ordinary Iraqi's. The vast majority of Iraqi's are not engaged in any sort of violence at all.

it doesn't matter what started it, it matters who's engaging in the fighting, and AQ is NOT engaged in the fighting beyond a very small (2-3%) percentage.

this is not an Al-Qaeda problem. this is not an "insurgency" problem. this is an IRAQI problem.

it is sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing.

 

[Irvine511]

90% of the sectarian killing happens in one area of Iraq, Baghdad. Its been helped along and fed by the Iraqi insurgency which created the situation in the first place. The Democrats have no plan at all to deal with it. Remember, their only plan is to move US troops out of the country as soon as possible.

no, this is not true at all.

some Democrats are advocating a redeployment of US troops to Kurdistan where they can continue to train the Iraqi army and perform tactical strikes if needed, but it gets them out of Baghdad.

it's very lazy of you to paint people who don't agree with you (which is the American People, at this point) as advocating a complete and total pull out.

there's actuall discussion and debate about the best way to deal with the mess Bush has made in Iraq.



[q]Its not just the US economy that is dependent on Persian Gulf Oil, its the entire GLOBAL ECONOMY that is dependent on it. Even if you were magically able to get just the US economy off of using oil, it would not change the stakes at all really given the level of US trade and interdependence with the rest of the global economy which would still be using oil.[/q]

cool! so i assume you're a big Gore fan? you think Schwarzennager is a great governor? you don't drive much, i assume. you support politicians who are seeking to wean ourselves, and by extention other countries who would surely follow the US example, off of Middle Eastern oil?

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Iraqi Army division deepens discord
By HANNAH ALLAM
McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The overwhelmingly Shiite Muslim military force at the forefront of U.S. and Iraqi plans to secure one of the nation's most fractious provinces is accused of arresting hundreds of Sunni men on little or no evidence, threatening to rape a suspect's wife to coerce a confession, and intimidating its commander's critics, according to interviews with Iraqi and U.S. officials.


Backed by U.S. troops, the Iraqi Army's 5th Division on Saturday launched a new offensive to rout suspected al-Qaida-allied terrorists from Baquba, the capital of a province infested with Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias, warring tribes and criminal gangs.


While a U.S. military statement said the weekend operation shows the "commitment of Iraqi army officers and soldiers to protect and secure the people," local residents and Sunni leaders point to the Iraqi division's track record as one of the chief problems plaguing the restive Diyala province north of Baghdad.


Brig. Gen. Shakir Hulayl al-Kaabi, commander of the division, oversees a mostly Shiite force in an area where at least half the population is Sunni. The American officers who previously worked with him have been reported as saying they tried to have him removed for refusing orders and acting on a sectarian agenda. Sunni leaders say his men are waging a campaign of collective punishment because of vicious Sunni insurgent attacks against Shiites and U.S.-led forces.


Despite the laundry list of accusations against al-Kaabi, the Shiite-led government in Baghdad keeps promoting him. With U.S. forces planning to hand over full military control of Diyala and other provinces this spring, the experience of the 5th Division is viewed by many as a harbinger of deep troubles to come as American troops gradually move on.[/q]

 

[STING2]

it doesn't matter what started it, it matters who's engaging in the fighting, and AQ is NOT engaged in the fighting beyond a very small (2-3%) percentage.

this is not an Al-Qaeda problem. this is not an "insurgency" problem. this is an IRAQI problem.

it is sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing.

I never stated it was an Al-Quada problem. But the Iraqi insurgency is heavily involved in the sectarian killing that is being seen. The tactics and methods as well as intelligence gathered by US forces show this to be the case.

It is also a problem that is primarily confined to one area of Iraq, Baghdad.

 

[STING2]

no, this is not true at all.

some Democrats are advocating a redeployment of US troops to Kurdistan where they can continue to train the Iraqi army and perform tactical strikes if needed, but it gets them out of Baghdad.

it's very lazy of you to paint people who don't agree with you (which is the American People, at this point) as advocating a complete and total pull out.

there's actuall discussion and debate about the best way to deal with the mess Bush has made in Iraq.




cool! so i assume you're a big Gore fan? you think Schwarzennager is a great governor? you don't drive much, i assume. you support politicians who are seeking to wean ourselves, and by extention other countries who would surely follow the US example, off of Middle Eastern oil?

The United States has had troops in Kurdistan since 1991. You redeploy US forces to Kurdistan which is only a small sliver of Iraq north of Kirkuk and Mosul, you have completely withdrawn to where US forces were prior to the invasion of Iraq and will be incapable of stabilizing the situation in the country. Bosnia and Kosovo as well as other violenced racked area's of the world were not stablized by troops stationed hundreds of miles away from where the problems were. Again, your not going to be able to effectively train the majority of the Iraqi military and police force from outside or nearlly outside the country. You can't have US advisors imbedded with Iraqi units to train them without also having US combat Brigades on the ground in the country. To many democrats are attempting to paint their total withdrawal plans as anything but that, but its the only goal their achieving with those policies.

How does "redeployment" aka total withdrawal accomplish the goals of stabilizing Iraq and training the entire Iraqi military and police force? The irony is that if you really believe this is the best policy for Iraq, you have to believe that the situation on the ground is better than many claim it is, and that the Iraqi military and police force are more capable than many claim they are currently.



EVERYONE supports an alternative source of energy that is CHEAPER and MORE EFFICIENT than oil. But none exist right now that business's could immediately start using in place of oil to reduce the cost of to their business and increase their profits. The market ultimately will decide if and when an alternative to oil will become the choice of business's worldwide. The GLOBAL Business world does whats best for its bottom line, and until oil prices rise to a level that is greater than what ever the alternative is, or an alternative comes out of no where that is automatically cheaper than whatever the price of oil is at any given time, the planet is going to continue to use oil.

 

[Irvine511]

The United States has had troops in Kurdistan since 1991. You redeploy US forces to Kurdistan which is only a small sliver of Iraq north of Kirkuk and Mosul, you have completely withdrawn to where US forces were prior to the invasion of Iraq and will be incapable of stabilizing the situation in the country. Bosnia and Kosovo as well as other violenced racked area's of the world were not stablized by troops stationed hundreds of miles away from where the problems were. Again, your not going to be able to effectively train the majority of the Iraqi military and police force from outside or nearlly outside the country. You can't have US advisors imbedded with Iraqi units to train them without also having US combat Brigades on the ground in the country. To many democrats are attempting to paint their total withdrawal plans as anything but that, but its the only goal their achieving with those policies.

How does "redeployment" aka total withdrawal accomplish the goals of stabilizing Iraq and training the entire Iraqi military and police force? The irony is that if you really believe this is the best policy for Iraq, you have to believe that the situation on the ground is better than many claim it is, and that the Iraqi military and police force are more capable than many claim they are currently.

rave and rant about Joe Biden's suggestions all you like, just don't distort the Democrats as having only a single position and that said position is to bring the troops back to the US.

EVERYONE supports an alternative source of energy that is CHEAPER and MORE EFFICIENT than oil. But none exist right now that business's could immediately start using in place of oil to reduce the cost of to their business and increase their profits. The market ultimately will decide if and when an alternative to oil will become the choice of business's worldwide. The GLOBAL Business world does whats best for its bottom line, and until oil prices rise to a level that is greater than what ever the alternative is, or an alternative comes out of no where that is automatically cheaper than whatever the price of oil is at any given time, the planet is going to continue to use oil.

so i assume you make good consumer choices.

good for you.

what color is your hybrid?

 

[Dreadsox]

rave and rant about Joe Biden's suggestions all you like, just don't distort the Democrats as having only a single position and that said position is to bring the troops back to the US.







so i assume you make good consumer choices.

good for you.

what color is your hybrid?

Mine is red!!!

 

[Irvine511]

Mine is red!!!

 

[Irvine511]

driving a hybrid and supporting a gas tax is the 2006 equivalent of a Victory Garden.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Gates Says U.S. Is Not Winning Iraq War

Dec 5, 10:45 AM (ET)

By ROBERT BURNS

WASHINGTON (AP) - Robert Gates, the White House choice to be the next defense secretary, conceded Tuesday that the United States is losing the war in Iraq and warned that if that country is not stabilized in the next year or two it could lead to a "regional conflagration."

At the outset of his Senate confirmation hearing, Gates said he is open to new ideas about correcting the U.S. course in Iraq, which he said would be his highest priority if confirmed as expected.

Gates, 63, said he believes President Bush wants to see Iraq improve to the point where it can govern and defend itself, while seeking a new approach.

"What we are now doing is not satisfactory," Gates said.

"In my view, all options are on the table, in terms of how we address this problem in Iraq," he added.

Asked point-blank by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir."[/q]

 

[STING2]

[q]Gates Says U.S. Is Not Winning Iraq War

Dec 5, 10:45 AM (ET)

By ROBERT BURNS

WASHINGTON (AP) - Robert Gates, the White House choice to be the next defense secretary, conceded Tuesday that the United States is losing the war in Iraq and warned that if that country is not stabilized in the next year or two it could lead to a "regional conflagration."

At the outset of his Senate confirmation hearing, Gates said he is open to new ideas about correcting the U.S. course in Iraq, which he said would be his highest priority if confirmed as expected.

Gates, 63, said he believes President Bush wants to see Iraq improve to the point where it can govern and defend itself, while seeking a new approach.

"What we are now doing is not satisfactory," Gates said.

"In my view, all options are on the table, in terms of how we address this problem in Iraq," he added.

Asked point-blank by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir."[/q]

He didn't say the United States was losing either. He also stated the the United States military has not lost a single battle 4 years into the war. Gates has been President of Texas A&M University for the past few years. He is not the Secretary of Defense yet. He'll be better informed once he gets into that position, and he has also said that the views of top US military commanders will play the most important role in his decision making on Iraq. Once again, General John Abazaid and his views will continue to play the dominating role in what happens in Iraq for the next two years.

Carl Levin, Murtha, or the majority of Democrats who want to see a total US pullout in one year are not going to get what they want. Neither is Joe Biden and others who mistakenly think that splitting Iraq up is the way to go.

 

[randhail]

He didn't say the United States was losing either.

That is some great spin right there. That sounds like something the former Iraqi Information Minister would say. Thanks for putting a laugh into my day!

 

[Dreadsox]

OMG....I just popped my kidney stone I laughed so hard.

 

[verte76]

He didn't say the United States was losing either.

 

[STING2]

That is some great spin right there. That sounds like something the former Iraqi Information Minister would say. Thanks for putting a laugh into my day!

Well, to many people imply that if your "not winning" than you must be "losing". Some believe the Iraq situation is a stalemate at the current time like Mr. Gates. General John Abazaid, the Divisional commanders on the ground in Iraq, as well as hundreds of thousands of services members think the United States is winning, and based on the slow but steady progress that has been made over the past 4 years, their right!

Yes, the sectarian violence around Baghdad has been a setback, but other than that everything is continueing to move forward and the insurgency itself is no larger than it was 2 and a half years ago. As I said before, there have been plenty of accomplishments:

1. two successful democratic elections in which the majority of the population participated.
2. the passing of a constitution
3. Iraq's first elected government coming into office.
4. Over 300,000 military and police forces trained.
5. compromises between the various ethnic groups of Iraq including Sunni acceptence of Maliki as the new leader of the government when Jafferi was seen as unacceptable.
6. Iraqi military units that have performed very well in combat in various operations in Anbar province with little or no support from the US military.
7. The continued professionalism of the Iraqi military and non-sectarianism compared with police forces which have sometimes been caught in engaging in sectarian violence. The problems in the police forces are not seen anywhere near to that degree in the military.
8. Substantial GDP growth across the country.
9. Relative calm and peace in 13 of the 18 provinces of Iraq.
10. Polls in those provinces showing that "security" is not a top concern for the people that live there.
11. The distribution of humanitarian aid, electricity, and other services to many parts of Iraq that had often been denied such items for decades.
12. The standard of living of the average Iraqi is higher than that of the average person in Afghanistan, yet Iraqi's are perceived to be worse off than people in Afghanistan.



The critics will continue to find area's to attack the administration, but as always, they are unable to articulate a better strategy for what to do in Iraq than the general course that the administration has been on for some time now. In fact, its rare that they even offer any alternative idea's. Nation Building and Counter Insurgency are not things that can be accomplished over night as some critics mistakenly believe.

 

[Irvine511]

and yet, with all these accomplishments, the government barely functions, it cannot provide even a basic level of security, and the country is currently torn apart by ethnic cleansing in wht is increasingly deemed a Civil War.

kind of means that all the above are rather meaningless.

 

[STING2]

and yet, with all these accomplishments, the government barely functions, it cannot provide even a basic level of security, and the country is currently torn apart by ethnic cleansing in wht is increasingly deemed a Civil War.

kind of means that all the above are rather meaningless.

The Government does function though, and there was not a government less than a year ago. Iraq has made it to this point faster than either Germany or Japan did. Most Iraqi provinces do have that basic level of security you talk about although the government at the current time is only partially responsible for that. 90% of the ethnic cleansing or sectarian violence you talk of, happens in one area of Iraq, the Baghdad metropolitan area.

Your description of the situation is inaccurate, and the accomplishments are far from being meaningless and has set up the coalition and the Iraqi government/military for further success in the future.

 

[Irvine511]

RIP 1st Lt Nathan Krissoff killed in action outside of Fallujah with 3rd Reconnaissance Battallion

i swam with him in college.

another kid, dead, for nothing.

nothing.

 

[BonosSaint]

I'm sorry about your friend.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Iraqi officials are near agreement on a national oil law that would give the central government the power to distribute current and future oil revenues to the provinces or regions, based on their population, Iraqi and American officials say. . . .

The national oil law lies at the heart of debates about the future of Iraq, particularly the issue of a strong central government versus robust regional governments. The oil question has also inflamed ethnic and sectarian tensions. Sunni Arabs, who preside over areas of the country that apparently have little or no oil, are adamant about the equitable distribution of oil revenues by the central government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/world/middleeast/09oil.html?ex=1323320400&en=fecbb0bd8436aab0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

 

[yolland]

RIP 1st Lt Nathan Krissoff killed in action outside of Fallujah with 3rd Reconnaissance Battallion

i swam with him in college.

 

[anitram]

The Saudi ambassador has left Washington and the Saudis are threatening to fund the insurgency if US troops leave (per NY Times).

This war has been lost. What an utter embarrassment.

 

[Irvine511]

The Saudi ambassador has left Washington and the Saudis are threatening to fund the insurgency if US troops leave (per NY Times).

This war has been lost. What an utter embarrassment.

the Saudis are afraid of their own Shia uprising.

it will be like 17th century Europe, only instead of Catholics and Protestants, it will be Sunnis and Shiites.

 

[STING2]

The Saudi ambassador has left Washington and the Saudis are threatening to fund the insurgency if US troops leave (per NY Times).

This war has been lost. What an utter embarrassment.

Saudi Arabia like many other countries in the region want the current Iraqi government to succeed, and do not want to see the premature withdrawal that is being pushed by most Democrats in the United States. They understand how the situation could quickly deteriate if the USA suddenly were to withdraw and would need to continue to support Sunni tribes in order to prevent them from becoming seriously vulnerable to Shia tribes and militia's.

If the war has been "lost", the Iraqi government would not exist, nor the Iraqi military, and the United States would not have any option about whether to stay at current force levels, increase them, or pullout some or all forces. A nation building process like this takes at a MINIMUM 10 years to complete. Declarations of failure at the 3 year mark are premature to say the least, especially considering how much as been accomplished.

 

[STING2]

the Saudis are afraid of their own Shia uprising.

it will be like 17th century Europe, only instead of Catholics and Protestants, it will be Sunnis and Shiites.

Saudi Arabia is over 85% Sunni Muslim. The prospects for a successful Shia uprising in Saudi Arabia are not much better than the prospects for a Sunni uprising in Iran.

Saudi Arabia is concerned about the vulnerability of the Sunni Arab population in Iraq, especially over the long term, in the event of a premature US withdrawal.

 

[Irvine511]

Saudi Arabia like many other countries in the region want the current Iraqi government to succeed, and do not want to see the premature withdrawal that is being pushed by most Democrats in the United States. They understand how the situation could quickly deteriate if the USA suddenly were to withdraw and would need to continue to support Sunni tribes in order to prevent them from becoming seriously vulnerable to Shia tribes and militia's.

this is funny, not because it's wrong, but because you make it sound as if SA and the US are standing side-by-side equally concerned with the advancement of Arab democracy, their arms folded, thinking of ways to make this great experiment in Iraq succeed.

garbage.

the Saudis -- in addition to being amongst the worst people in the world, and i mean the Royal Family -- are concerned with the maintenance of their own power and the security of their country. the KNOW that a shiite dominated Iraq controlled by Iran would be disasterous for the country and for their grasp on power, and they KNOW how bad a bloody crackdown on a Shiite uprising -- regardless of the success of such an uprising -- would be to their hold on power, and the harder they crack down on their own Shiites, the more Shiites across the middle east are going to be calling for Saudi blood vengence.

If the war has been "lost", the Iraqi government would not exist, nor the Iraqi military, and the United States would not have any option about whether to stay at current force levels, increase them, or pullout some or all forces. A nation building process like this takes at a MINIMUM 10 years to complete. Declarations of failure at the 3 year mark are premature to say the least, especially considering how much as been accomplished.

if the war is to be "won," the Iraqi government would function, the Iraqi military would be able to control violence, 100 Iraqis a day would not be getting killed, and the US wouldn't have to reasses and change it's strategy because it would be working and we wouldn't have to consider drastic options like either flooding the region with 500,000 troops (which would necessitate the draft) or withdrawing to Kurdistan and moderating a Civil War (shia vs sunni, arabs vs persians) from afar. the fact that these are the only options left speaks VOLUMES about the failure that has occured and the incompetence of the original strategy.

we are on the verge of having to side with one faction in the Iraqi Civil War (sunnis or shiites?) and that has terrible ramifications no matter who we choose. it is a FAILURE to have our military enmeshed in a civil war. so the question is, STING, not how can we succeed but how can we save what's left of Iraq before a full-fledged civil war gives us no other options.

what's happened is we've accidentally (though, with thoughtful people in charge who understand that Sunnis are different from the Shia, unlike our president, who knows what might have happened) jump started a Middle Eastern war. oil prices -- what you've been so worried about -- are going to become wildly unstable as it's really the WMD of the region. hundreds of thousands will die.

welcome to Hell, y'all.

but maybe, just maybe, it will get us off the oil and onto real alternative energy sources.

 

[STING2]

this is funny, not because it's wrong, but because you make it sound as if SA and the US are standing side-by-side equally concerned with the advancement of Arab democracy, their arms folded, thinking of ways to make this great experiment in Iraq succeed.

garbage.

the Saudis -- in addition to being amongst the worst people in the world, and i mean the Royal Family -- are concerned with the maintenance of their own power and the security of their country. the KNOW that a shiite dominated Iraq controlled by Iran would be disasterous for the country and for their grasp on power, and they KNOW how bad a bloody crackdown on a Shiite uprising -- regardless of the success of such an uprising -- would be to their hold on power, and the harder they crack down on their own Shiites, the more Shiites across the middle east are going to be calling for Saudi blood vengence.







if the war is to be "won," the Iraqi government would function, the Iraqi military would be able to control violence, 100 Iraqis a day would not be getting killed, and the US wouldn't have to reasses and change it's strategy because it would be working and we wouldn't have to consider drastic options like either flooding the region with 500,000 troops (which would necessitate the draft) or withdrawing to Kurdistan and moderating a Civil War (shia vs sunni, arabs vs persians) from afar. the fact that these are the only options left speaks VOLUMES about the failure that has occured and the incompetence of the original strategy.

we are on the verge of having to side with one faction in the Iraqi Civil War (sunnis or shiites?) and that has terrible ramifications no matter who we choose. it is a FAILURE to have our military enmeshed in a civil war. so the question is, STING, not how can we succeed but how can we save what's left of Iraq before a full-fledged civil war gives us no other options.

what's happened is we've accidentally (though, with thoughtful people in charge who understand that Sunnis are different from the Shia, unlike our president, who knows what might have happened) jump started a Middle Eastern war. oil prices -- what you've been so worried about -- are going to become wildly unstable as it's really the WMD of the region. hundreds of thousands will die.

welcome to Hell, y'all.

but maybe, just maybe, it will get us off the oil and onto real alternative energy sources.

I never claimed Saudi Arabia was concerned about the advancement of "Arab Democracy", they are concerned about stability in Iraq as well as that there be a government in place in Iraq that is not hostile to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia as Saddam's regime was. US and Global Security are tied to Saudi Security and has been for decades. The level Prosperity that the world has enjoyed since World War II would not be possible without Persian Gulf Oil.


In case you did not know, there was NO Iraqi government in place just 6 months ago. If you think this is Disneyland, then maybe a brand new government could in just 6 months control all violence and give Iraq a level of prosperity compared to their neighbors to the south.

For better understanding, just take a look at history. Your not going to be able to invade a country the size of Iraq and establish the level of prosperity and security after what this country had been through in the previous 25 years. Nation Building is a long and difficult process that takes far more time than the 3 years that has been spent so far. Defeating the average insurgency takes a minimum of 10 years.

The current course of action is working as the commanders on the GROUND in Iraq have testified. It is slow, like any nationbuilding or counter insurgency effort and will NEVER produce the results you claim it should in the amount of time that has been spent. Leaving will only destroy the accomplishments of the pass 3 years and put the region into an unstable situation in the short term and a very dangerous situation in the long term probably requiring the full deployment of US forces to the country again in a new war. Increasing troop strength is possible for a sustained period if caps on the use of National Guard Combat Brigades are lifted. But even if troop strength is increased, it will still require years of sustained committment to achieve the goals of a stable Iraqi government with an Iraqi military that can handle its own needs, although it would speed up the process. Succeeding in nation building and counter insurgency efforts require long term committments of resources. There is no quick fix or silver bullet solution, but TIME and sustained committment of the resources required will achieve US goals for Iraq.


Bosnia was a full fledged Civil War. The critics claimed it would devour any sort of US intervention. But the opposite proved true. Political efforts got Bosnian Croatians and Bosnian Muslims to stop fighting each other. The Serbs had to be forced to the bargaining table through military action and the growing strength of the united croat/muslim forces. The Serbs gave in, the fighting was stopped, and Bosnia is still a united country today without the violence that nearly destroyed in the 1990s and with a standard of living that is better than several neighboring countries in Eastern Europe.

Iraq is not anywhere near what Bosnia went through. Things in Bosnia on a per capita level were 50 times worse than anything seen in Iraq. That did not make the situation there unsolvable though. Hundreds of Thousands of people have not died, oil supplies in both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are more secure today than they have been in decades with the removal of Saddam from power. There is no greater middle eastern war nor is there a civil war in Iraq at the current time. You have significant sectarian violence around Baghdad, but thats it. Most of the provinces in Iraq sight the lack of services rather than the lack of security as being their most pressing problems. Again, you can't take Baghdad and extrapolate it as being all of Iraq.


Business's around the world will continue to use what ever energy source is the least expensive. For an alternative energy resource to succeed, it must be less expensive and more efficient than oil for any business to move to it. This will happen eventually as oil over the long term will continue to rise in price making alternatives comparably cheaper. Even when this does happen, that does not mean the problems in the region will no longer be an issue for the USA and the world as the world continues to grow increasingly interdependent economically, politically, and socially, in a variety of ways.

Afghanistan has many of the same fundamental problems as Iraq. Curiously, though, no one is describing the situation there as impossible and that the USA should leave. Afghanistan is a mult-ethnic society with a central government that in many ways has less in capability than the current government in Baghdad. Afghanistan's traditional history for the past 5,000 years has been one of warlordism which is essentially civil war. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are going to take years to build and fight off the insurgencies that plague both countries. Withdrawing from them will not make the situation in either country better, and will worsen longterm US national security. Time and continued committment of resources though will eventually achieve the important goals of the United States in both countries.