It's True: Iraq is a quagmire

[Big Don]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07322/834685-373.stm
Jack Kelly gets it.

 

[heretic888]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07322/834685-373.stm
Jack Kelly gets it.

Hi Big Don,

Well, since we've already won The Real Iraq, I guess that means our men and women can come home now?? The author is essentially saying Mission Accomplished, so he's arguing for military withdrawal from Iraq?? Right??

Unless, of course, the article in question was just a fluff piece to dismiss those who criticize the war's purpose and strategy and is the tired old Disagree With Me And You're With The Terrorists wardrum of the Pax Americana imperialists??

Nah, couldn't be. That'd just be cliched at this point.

 

[michaeledward]

I thought that Osama Bin Laden attacked America on September 11, 2001 because the US Military was living and working in the Islamic holy lands of Saudi Arabia. Well, if we listen to his words, that's what he told us.

And, the vast portions of the US Military that had been forward deployed in Saudi Arabia have since been redeployed out of Saudi Arabia.

I'm not certain that having a strong al Qaeda presence in Iraq was ever a goal of Mr. bin Laden, beyond the idea of the Caliphate; which, as I understand it encompasses much more than Iraq, and is actually focused in Eqypt, Israel and Lebanon.

 

[Big Don]

Michael: No, Al Qaeda attacks people, not because of anything their victims have actually done, but because they are murderous bastards and that is what murderous bastards do.
Heretic, what the author suggests is not that we withdraw, but rather, that the media distorts the successes we have seen, exaggerating the negative and minimizing the positive.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

The same way they publicize every death but never show any stories of bravery, courage or the awarding of citations like bronze stars CMH etc.

 

[Big Don]

Like Army Lieutenant Walter B. Jackson, only the seventh soldier in the past 32 years to be awarded the Distinguished Service Cross.Lt. Jackson’s citation reads in part:

“Upon regaining consciousness after being shot, second lieutenant alternated between returning fire and administering first aid to the Soldier. Second Lt. Jackson was hit again with machine gun fire as he helped carry his wounded comrade to safety, but he never faltered in his aid. Although his own severe wounds required immediate evacuation and surgical care, 2nd Lt. Jackson refused medical assistance until his wounded comrade could be treated. Second Lt. Jackson’s selfless courage under extreme enemy fire was essential to saving another Soldier’s life and is in keeping with the finest traditions of military service…”

The DSC is second only to the Medal of Honor, but, LT Jackson's courageous actions weren't enough to merit mention on any network newscast.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Shameful

 

[JBrainard]

Al-Qaida is evacuating populated areas and is trying to establish hideouts in the Hamrin mountains in northern Iraq, with U.S. and Iraqi security forces, and former insurgent allies who have turned on them, in hot pursuit. Forty-five al-Qaida leaders were killed or captured in October alone.
Al-Qaida's support in the Muslim world has plummeted, partly because of the terror group's lack of success in Iraq, more because al-Qaida's attacks have mostly killed Muslim civilians.
"Iraq has proved to be the graveyard, not just of many al-Qaida operatives, but of the organization's reputation as a defender of Islam," said StrategyPage.

At least some good came out of this war.

 

[JBrainard]

No, Al Qaeda attacks people, not because of anything their victims have actually done, but because they are murderous bastards and that is what murderous bastards do.

Sorry if I sound like an *******, but what a wonderfully simplistic view of the situation. It must make your opinions very easy to formulate.

 

[michaeledward]

Michael: No, Al Qaeda attacks people, not because of anything their victims have actually done, but because they are murderous bastards and that is what murderous bastards do.

I can't help but wonder ...

We are told that "Iraq is the central front in the Global War on Terrorism, because Osama Bin Laden says it is" by our President. This leads us to believe that we should give credence to what Osama Bin Laden says.

Then we are told that "Al Qaeda attacks because they are murderous bastards", and we should not give credence to what Osama Bin Laden says.

Well ... just as long as we can have it both ways at the same time.

 

[Cruentus]

Michael: No, Al Qaeda attacks people, not because of anything their victims have actually done, but because they are murderous bastards and that is what murderous bastards do.

This may be an incredibly simplistic way of looking at this, but it is very true.

There are people who may be pissed off with American policy who don't resort to violence against innocent people to make their point. These people have a point of view that needs to be respected and discussed. However, once an individual or group decides to cross that line, their worldview and "plight," if you will, loses all credibility.

So any comments to imply that we could prevent from being attacked if we just behaved differently amounts to ********, in my opinion.

 

[Big Don]

The thing is, terrorists are by any sane definition, a tad mentally unbalanced, (sane people don't wear explosive clothing...)therefore, taking their rationales as rational is, by definition, irrational.

 

[CoryKS]

The thing is, terrorists are by any sane definition, a tad mentally unbalanced, (sane people don't wear explosive clothing...)therefore, taking their rationales as rational is, by definition, irrational.

Well, terrorism itself is a sane approach as long as you can expect people to get all scared and give you whatever you want. It's when people get pissed off and start killing the terrorists and their loved ones in large quantities that the strategy ought to be reexamined. Problem is, when you've used one strategy for a long time it's hard to think outside the box.

It's the suicide bombers that take a whole other degree of stupid. Unfortunately, they got a lot of that to go around.

 

[JBrainard]

This may be an incredibly simplistic way of looking at this, but it is very true.

There are people who may be pissed off with American policy who don't resort to violence against innocent people to make their point. These people have a point of view that needs to be respected and discussed. However, once an individual or group decides to cross that line, their worldview and "plight," if you will, loses all credibility.

So any comments to imply that we could prevent from being attacked if we just behaved differently amounts to ********, in my opinion.

One problem with this Big Don's point of view is that it encourages people to forget that, as horrible as they are, terrorists do have a ryme to thier reason. This hinders diplomacy, and from a military standpoint, you don't really "know your enemy."
But that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem (and the administration has spoon fed this to us from the start) is that it dehumanizes the enemy. It makes it much easier to hate and kill our enemies if we feel they are less than human. Why use diplomacy when it means nothing to simply destroy them? Hitler was the master of this tactic. He convinced a nation that Jews were worth less than the dirt they walked on. Countries still use this tactic to push their war-agendas. And our country does it as well.

The thing is, terrorists are by any sane definition, a tad mentally unbalanced, (sane people don't wear explosive clothing...)therefore, taking their rationales as rational is, by definition, irrational.

But these people believe that what they are doing makes complete sense. Again, "know your enemy."

 

[CoryKS]

One problem with this Big Don's point of view is that it encourages people to forget that, as horrible as they are, terrorists do have a ryme to thier reason. This hinders diplomacy, and from a military standpoint, you don't really "know your enemy."

And I'm okay with that, really. There are some things that, if you do them, I don't need to understand your point of view anymore.

But that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem (and the administration has spoon fed this to us from the start) is that it dehumanizes the enemy. It makes it much easier to hate and kill our enemies if we feel they are less than human.

The administration didn't dehumanize our enemy. They did that all by themselves. They've made it as easy to hate and kill them as it could possibly be, and they have no one but themselves to blame.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

And I'm okay with that, really. There are some things that, if you do them, I don't need to understand your point of view anymore.

Exactly.

 

[heretic888]

Heretic, what the author suggests is not that we withdraw, but rather, that the media distorts the successes we have seen, exaggerating the negative and minimizing the positive.

Hi Big Don,

Yeah, yeah, I know. We never hear stories about the buildings that aren't getting blown up.

There's a lot of reasons for this, I'm sure. The old adage If It Bleeds It Leads probably has more to do with this than anything else. On the days of school shootings here in the States, there's probably gonna be a lot more coverage of that stuff than of all the schools that weren't shot up on that day.

But, to address some of the claims made on this thread, I have seen at least two dozen stories over the past year about individual soldiers' stories and the heroic feats they have performed in Iraq. One of them is a co-worker of my friend's father (they're both firefighters in Miami) and he didn't utter a word about what he did or the Purple Heart he earned to anyone (they found out about it through a Marine Corps editorial that was sent to his superior at the station). This had less to do with "political bias" and more to do about his character as a human being.

My guess is most of the guys that do this sort of stuff don't feel like spreading the word about their deeds. That almost definitely has more to do with their sporadic presence on the news networks than anything else.

Of course, if we have not "won" the so-called Real Iraq to the point that we can at least begin phased military withdrawal then it sounds to me like we haven't "won" anything at all, at least not a victory that would be in any sense meaningful to the American public. This is a fluff piece showcasing Pax Americana propaganda, and very little else.

'Course, that's just my take.

 

[michaeledward]

The thing is, terrorists are by any sane definition, a tad mentally unbalanced, (sane people don't wear explosive clothing...)therefore, taking their rationales as rational is, by definition, irrational.

Again, I don't quite understand ...

Why does the President use the words of someone 'mentally unbalanced' to justify American Foreign Policy?

President Bush, and many in his Administration, have told us that we can not withdraw from Iraq because it is the "central front in the global war on terror" because Osama bin Laden says it is.

Why is American military and foreign policy being written by someone you claim is insane? Why would our President abdicate his responsibility to mad man?

 

[JBrainard]

The administration didn't dehumanize our enemy. They did that all by themselves. They've made it as easy to hate and kill them as it could possibly be, and they have no one but themselves to blame.

I don't know how you can say that our administration didn't dehumanize our enemy, but ok.
The other cause of the dehumanization is simply the general public's complete apathy towards understanding the who/what/why of what is really going on.
I have no love for Bin-Laden and his cronies, but they are human beings that believe firmly that they are doing the right thing for the right reasons. You don't have to agree with them, but understanding them gives you more information. And information is power.

 

[Big Don]

Again, I don't quite understand ...

Why does the President use the words of someone 'mentally unbalanced' to justify American Foreign Policy?

President Bush, and many in his Administration, have told us that we can not withdraw from Iraq because it is the "central front in the global war on terror" because Osama bin Laden says it is.

Why is American military and foreign policy being written by someone you claim is insane? Why would our President abdicate his responsibility to mad man?

Really? You think we should just ignore the crazies and they'll go away, Pollyanna?
We don't need to understand the "reasoning" of terrorists. There is only one thing we need to know about terrorists:How to kill them.
Did California need to know why Manson was insane before they locked his crazy *** up? NO, just knowing he was dangerously insane was enough to merit removing him from society.