And just HOW is the war going?

[Bester]

So, the solution is clear.



Bush needs to stop talking. Obviously the news media is fabricating all this to make him look bad.

 

[michaeledward]

And today we see this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

‘The Salvador Option’
The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq
Jan. 8 - What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November’s operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency—as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time—than in spreading it out.

 

[PeachMonkey]

And today we see this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

Look how well our policies in Central and South America worked.... unless, of course, you're into mass murder, which most of the Republican administrations of the 80s and early 90s most certainly were.

 

[michaeledward]

More Money, More Money, More Money.

The President is requesting additional money to continue the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

70 Billion more to get us to September.

50 Billion more after that, to get us from September to December.

This is above and beyond the normal Defense Appropriations amount of 558 Billion Dollars. It is still amazing to me that the war in Iraq requires SUPPLEMENTAL appropriations.

 

[michaeledward]

Reuters News Service is reporting some very disturbing news. It may be lost through the Israel - Lebanon conflict.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21908240.htm

BAGHDAD, July 21 (Reuters) - Iraqi leaders have all but given up on holding the country together and, just two months after forming a national unity government, talk in private of "black days" of civil war ahead.

There is some discussion among experts that Grand Ayatollah Sistani may be getting close to 'giving up' on Iraq. Sistani is one of the, I believe, 12 Grand Ayatollah's in Islam (8 of whom live in Iran). One of the quotes from 'The Chris Matthews Show', is that if the Grand Ayatollah "decides the game is up, the game is up."

The talk about Iraq, in Iraq now, is to divide the country into Sunni & Shi'ite enclaves ... dividing Baghdad in half - East / West ... to separate the two groups.

And, also below the radar screen, there has been some aggression from Turkey toward the Kurd's in Northern Iraq, and vice versa.

 

[Kensai]

Iraq was a secular nation prior to the invasion. Saddam paid lip service to Islam, but there wasn't any favoritism shown. His persecution of Shias was politically--not religiously--motivated. The Shias had the support of Iran...Saddam's enemies...so he and his sons rounded them up and disposed of them whenever they acted up. It had nothing to do with a preference for Sunni Islam.

As for TheKai's fears that our actions there will be viewed as empire building in the future...it is being viewed as empire building now by factions on both the left and the right.


Regards,


Steve

Spot on. One of the most astute posts made on this topic IMHO. Especially the current perception of embire building being done now.

 

[jazkiljok]

Re: And just HOW is the war going?



just check the news this morning. it still sucks.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

About a hundred a day dying.

12 people, mostly children, dead in a soccer field bombing.

People being abducted, and beheaded.

A 1,300 year old religious rivalry exploding out of control.



Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

I found this chart interesting.

 

[matt.m]

Steve,

Let me first say that I agree with you totally. I did 2 med tours, went to haiti, albania, bosnia twice, israel, turkey, liberia, tunisa etc.

I had my fair share of trouble spots while in the Corps 92-97. I was never in support of the Iraq invasion. Sorry, I am a former Sergeant etc. So before anyone calls me a traitor or something to that effect let me assure you I am not.

There was no point into going into Iraq, yes the trade centers were an absolute horrible tragedy. However, I am under the firm belief that Saddam was a ruler much like Castro. Not the nicest guy, however he liked things the way they were and was not rocking the boat.

Afganistan and the fall of the Al Quada is another issue entirely. What begs the question though, "If Al Quada and the Taliban were fighting the Russians, until Russia gave up. Why, if they saw Russia as the 'Evil' supremeist etc, then why would they not view America in the same way?"

It just seems that National Security should have been better. I believe during the Clinton era that it was. Sorry, just my opinion. Plus civil liberties losses were not in place the way they are now.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Matt,

Former military people who knock the war often get the accusation "traitor" leveled at them. One can't be pro-military and be anti-Iraq war, it seems.

To me, those who are serving, or served, and who insist that we blindly follow the President down this path are betraying nothing more than mindless jingoism. It is as if they'll lose their sense of identity and purpose if they don't toe the party line.

I'm of the opinion that casting a vote requires we become part of the "informed electorate" envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

That acquisition of information is a process without an endpoint. If our search leads us to independence of mind and we find ourselves at odds with the status quo...goodness, we've become Americans.


Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Steve,

For those who are serving, following the President down a foolish path, if the President chooses one, is required. The President is the Commander in Chief. As I understand it, following orders, so long as they are lawful orders, is not an item open to the soldiers discretion.

They may be able to vote for someone else once at the polling place, but after the President takes the oath of office, mindless jingoism is mandated for soldiers.

If I am incorrect in this assessment, if you have served or are serving and have a different understanding, I look forward to being corrected.

Mike

 

[FearlessFreep]

but after the President takes the oath of office, mindless jingoism is mandated for soldiers.

There is a huge difference between 'mindless jingoism' and 'fullfilling a sworn oath of service and self-sacrifice'

I served in the Air Force under Clinton and there was a big difference between how he was thought of as a person and how he was respected as the elected President Of The United States and Commander In Chief

 

[michaeledward]

And how relevant was the opinion of soldiers concerning President Clinton as a person?

 

[FearlessFreep]

And how relevant was the opinion of soldiers concerning President Clinton as a person?

When it came to fullfilling their oath to the United States by obeying the orders of the Commander In Chief of the US Military, not a bit.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

For those who are serving, following the President down a foolish path, if the President chooses one, is required. The President is the Commander in Chief. As I understand it, following orders, so long as they are lawful orders, is not an item open to the soldiers discretion.

True. To do otherwise would risk a court martial. That is not, however, what I was referring to.

They may be able to vote for someone else once at the polling place, but after the President takes the oath of office, mindless jingoism is mandated for soldiers.

No, it is not.

Of the two friends I have who have served over there, only one follows the "yessir, no sir, three bags full, sir" attitude I call "mindless jingoism." The other was harshly critical of the war in his personal correspondence home.

Both are now retired colonels.

Expect a yellow ribbon bumper sticker from the one. Expect a book from the latter.

Regards,


Steve

 

[jazkiljok]

Steve,

Let me first say that I agree with you totally. I did 2 med tours, went to haiti, albania, bosnia twice, israel, turkey, liberia, tunisa etc.

I had my fair share of trouble spots while in the Corps 92-97. I was never in support of the Iraq invasion. Sorry, I am a former Sergeant etc. So before anyone calls me a traitor or something to that effect let me assure you I am not.

There was no point into going into Iraq, yes the trade centers were an absolute horrible tragedy. However, I am under the firm belief that Saddam was a ruler much like Castro. Not the nicest guy, however he liked things the way they were and was not rocking the boat.

Afganistan and the fall of the Al Quada is another issue entirely. What begs the question though, "If Al Quada and the Taliban were fighting the Russians, until Russia gave up. Why, if they saw Russia as the 'Evil' supremeist etc, then why would they not view America in the same way?"

It just seems that National Security should have been better. I believe during the Clinton era that it was. Sorry, just my opinion. Plus civil liberties losses were not in place the way they are now.

the grand hypocrisy of taking down Saddam was the reversal with Gaddafi, (the daffy duck, i mean mad dog of the dessert.)-- the man openly supported terrorist attacks against the US, used his power to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths and suffering in neighboring countries. taylor, sankoh and kabila all trained in libya and we're backed by Gaddafi.

but now he's having tea with tony blair (while being accused by the saudi crown prince of plotting to kill the saudi king no less.)

before kuwait (where saddam actually believed he got some sort of green light from the US), saddam was consider more ally than enemy and who forgets the photo of rumsfeld and saddam shaking hands.

the realpolitik games being played out in the mideast has always been about a permanent state of slight destablization-- the goal is to never have anyone nation completely disabled to cause anarchy but to constantly weaken the players influence so that the oil continues to flow and no one nation gains dominance in the region.

jaz


ps- i've never known any friend in the military that wasn't educated, opinionated and independent in their ideas.

 

[Makalakumu]

the realpolitik games being played out in the mideast has always been about a permanent state of slight destablization-- the goal is to never have anyone nation completely disabled to cause anarchy but to constantly weaken the players influence so that the oil continues to flow and no one nation gains dominance in the region.

:asian:

 

[michaeledward]

Oh, and then there is this ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=Aho2oE0qj2PtJFGn98zquJ.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's prime minister sharply criticized a U.S.-Iraqi attack Monday on a Shiite militia stronghold in Baghdad, breaking with his American partners on security tactics as the United States launches a major operation to secure the capital.

. . .

Al-Maliki, a Shiite, said he was "very angered and pained" by the operation, warning that it could undermine his efforts toward national reconciliation.

"Reconciliation cannot go hand in hand with operations that violate the rights of citizens this way," al-Maliki said in a statement on government television. "This operation used weapons that are unreasonable to detain someone — like using planes."

He apologized to the Iraqi people for the operation and said "this won't happen again."

This can't be good, right? I mean, the guy we got put in power in Iraq, is telling all of the people in Iraq (including the insurgents) that the United States won't launch any more major operations. I wonder if there is a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking the hand of Prime Minister Al Maliki?

Former Senator Gary Hart called it a couple of weeks ago; Karl Rove will devise a totally fabricated reason to withdraw troops before November's election. Yesterday, Presidential Aides floated the idea that American Troops would not stay in Iraq if a Civil War broke out; no definition on what a Civil War will look like, yet.

It seems that stage is being set for President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to 'Cut and Run' ... I believe that is the phrase.

 

[jazkiljok]

Dick Cheney and the "definition of quagmire"

“Once you’ve got Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that’s currently there.... How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there?.... I think to have American military forces engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in that fashion.”


Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense-when he said this on April 29, 1991, explaining why Operation Desert Storm did not expand into taking over Iraq.

I miss that Dick...