This is the answer to Iraq.

[TD Ryan2 316]

Last week the American people delivered a clear - indeed a dramatic - message to the Administration, to the Congress, and to the Iraqi Government that “Stay the Course” is not a strategy for success in Iraq. It was a message heard around the world.

 

The American people don’t accept the President’s recent assessment that “absolutely we’re winning” in Iraq. Nor should we.

 

The American people have said forcefully that they are impatient with Iraqi leaders who will not make the political compromises required to blunt the sectarian violence and unite the Iraqi people. They are impatient with Iraqi government leaders who have not disbanded the militias and death squads that are a plague on Iraqi society. And they have lost patience with the Iraqi leaders who won’t condemn Sunni-Shia enmity, tribal rivalries, and ethnic hatred.

 

America has given the Iraqi people the opportunity to build a new nation at the cost of nearly 3,000 American lives and over twenty thousand wounded. But the American people do not want our valiant troops to get caught in a crossfire between Iraqis if they insist on squandering that opportunity through civil war and sectarian strife.

 

We were assured by the President over a year ago that “as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” Even though the Pentagon claims that almost 90 percent of the Iraqi Security Forces are now trained and equipped, our troop level remains about the same. We were momentarily hopeful when the Iraqi leaders signed a four point agreement on October 2nd to end the sectarian violence. That turned out to be another false hope.

 

Recently, Ambassador Khalilzad announced that Iraqi officials had agreed to a timeline for reaching benchmarks to confront the sectarian militias, to implement a reconciliation program, to share oil revenues, and to recommend changes to the constitution. Prime Minister Maliki repudiated that timeline the next day, providing additional evidence that the Iraqi political leaders do not understand that there is a limit to the blood and treasure that Americans are willing to spend given the unwillingness of the Iraqis themselves to put their political house in order.

 

Our uniformed military leaders have repeatedly told us that there is no military solution to the violence in Iraq, and that a political agreement between the Iraqis sectarian factions themselves is the only way to end the violence. Just last month, at his October 25th press conference, President Bush said that “In the end, the Iraqi people and their government will have to make the difficult decisions necessary to solve these problems.” In the end? We are 3 and one-half years into a conflict which has already lasted longer than the Korean Conflict and almost as long as World War II. We should put the responsibility for Iraq’s future squarely where it belongs – on the Iraqis. We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves.

 

The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months. That is not precipitous. It is a responsible way to change the dynamic in Iraq, to stop the march down the path to full blown civil war on which the Iraqis are now embarked. Yes, some U.S. troops would need to remain in Iraq for the limited missions of counter-terrorism and training of Iraqi Security Forces, and to provide logistical support and force protection. And yes, we should also convene an international conference to support a political settlement and to provide resources for Iraq’s reconstruction.

 

We are grateful to our witnesses for their service to our Nation and we are especially grateful and united in support of the brave troops who are serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. We look forward to the witnesses’ best professional judgment on the issues we will be grappling with in the weeks and months to come.

 

- Statement of Senator Carl Levin at the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Iraq

[wiffleball 4,790]

Kind of makes sense to the extent that we can't just keep doing what we've been doing and saying "Iraq needs to stand up" - but not holding them in any way accountable.

 

I was dissapionted to hear Abizaid basically say "we don't want any timetables or anthing else different - it's up to the iraqi people". - That's the same shiot we've been hearing and we're no better off now than we were. I'm pretty Abizaid is the same general who comes out about every 9 months and says "We should be able to start withdrawing troops in 12-18 months" - and has said that like 5 times over the years.

 

The Iraqi leadership doesn't have any reason to take responsibility if they know that the US will stay there & bail them out indefinitely. I don't know what the specific answer is, but it's the old adage "if you keep doing what you've been doing, you'll get what you keep getting."

 

One thing I'd like to see us do is fockin anihilate - I mean completely LEVEL Sadr City - that giant slum/swamp infested by the Mehdi Army. Give the women, children and elderly 24 hours to bail, then just anihilate that focking place. The Mehdi Army is the biggest coordinated force in Iraq - similar in many ways to Hammas. THAT's one target we have that we would be good at eradicating.

[What is the deal? 1]

we leave in 6 months, Ahmadinejad takes them over in 6.5 months

 

Not a good thing. This guy is the Hitler of the modern world. We cannot be ignorant when it comes to dealing with this guy. The Iraqi presence is good for that one reason, it gives us another front to be able to use if force is necessary. The Generals know this, Bush knows this, and the Dems will have to figure it out...

 

Besides your statement that American people have shown that they want us out of Iraq doesn't add up. The exit polls showed that most Americans voted against republicans because of scandals and perceived corruption not because of Iraq.

 

If Iraq was on the top of the list for the Dems to resolve, why was Murtha denied the speaker of the house position?

[hellothere 1]

i was kinda disappointed when i didn't see "massive nuclear strike" anywhere in here....

 

i mean gotta nuke something? right?

[GobbleDog 997]

I still believe the war was the correct decision, but the occupation has no doubt been a total disaster. Apparently, handing billions of dollars to the new Iraqi leadership for reconstructioin without oversite was a huge mistake. They squandered, and in many cases flat out stole most of the money.

 

It's now been 5 years since the war and Iraq still doesn't look close to being able to police themselves. The solution ??? The hell if I know.

 

[TD Ryan2 316]

I still believe the war was the correct decision,

 

 

 

not attacking you here Gobble, just curious why you still feel that way?

 

when this all started it was all about WMD, Iraq supporting terrorists, Iraq could/would nuke us, etc, etc, etc... and now all that reasoning seems to have fallen apart... now it's that Sadam was a bad guy (which he was) and his people needed us to save them.

 

I guess, in a Utopian world, yeah... outsing Saddam and "saving" the opressed Iraqis is the right thing to do, but this ain't Utopia and it ain't that cut and dry.

 

So, Like I said, I'm just curious why you still feel that way.

 

Thanks.

[Rusty Syringes 478]

I think it's high time we deploy The Wiffleball.

 

[MDC 7,499]

I tend to agree. Six months to a year ago I'd have been arguing for a serious increase in troop strength but I'm starting to believe that the violence is so entrenched that stamping it down by military force isn't an option - we just don't have the soldiers needed to do that right. After the elections I started reading articles about "unrest" in Iraq because they're unsure of our presence there, and suddenly the Iraqi government is claiming that its own military can quash the violence in six months. What are we waiting for? If Iraq thinks it can do a better job of policing itself than our soldiers can I say let them chose their own course. Until we set a timetable for withdrawl there's no incentive to stop the infighting. At this point it's time to start face-saving and planning to leave - the entire mission has been botched from the get go and staying out of pride is a waste of money and lives.

[Cdub100 3,934]

- Statement of Senator Carl Levin at the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Iraq

Michigan

[What is the deal? 1]

Does anyone realize the consequences if we leave the job early and the rest of the world pereceives the US as having lost?

 

I am sure that won't help the efforts of the fruit loops running the countries in Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela....

[MDC 7,499]

Does anyone realize the consequences if we leave the job early and the rest of the world pereceives the US as having lost?

 

I am sure that won't help the efforts of the fruit loops running the countries in Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela....

 

I think Bush's fantasyland foreign policy helps the fruit looks in Iran, NK, Venezuala, etc. even more.

[What is the deal? 1]

I think Bush's fantasyland foreign policy helps the fruit looks in Iran, NK, Venezuala, etc. even more.

It's not even about Bush, until people get that out of their head and take a step back to look at the big picture they'll never figure it out. If we concede it will lead to bigger problems on our own soil. We will appear vulnerable and weak.

 

If we back out of Iraq, I would suggest we perform exercises in American cities that prepare us if a nuke goes off or if chemical weapons are used against us. They will shift their focus to our homeland.

 

The fact is we aren't leaving anytime soon. There is no way our military leaders will let that happen. We need to be in Iraq because of Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

 

ETA: What we need to do is start a 3rd campaign to figure out how to win the damn thing. Some things definitely need to be changed. Maybe the Democrats will help now because they can get credit for helping us win

[Voltaire 5,322]

I still believe the war was the correct decision, but the occupation has no doubt been a total disaster. Apparently, handing billions of dollars to the new Iraqi leadership for reconstructioin without oversite was a huge mistake. They squandered, and in many cases flat out stole most of the money.

 

It's now been 5 years since the war and Iraq still doesn't look close to being able to police themselves. The solution ??? The hell if I know.

 

 

You seem to not be aware of so much of the misuse of money and stealing from reconstruction efforts were by Halliburton, Bechel and the rest. But we'll be getting a lot more answers now.

 

I didn't support the war in the first place because I knew first hand the Army was not trained for the kind of fighitng it would entail and that foreign occupations tend to go badly. It was known that Saddam and Osama hated each other and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. I did believe however that Saddam had WMD and was surprised when we didn't find any.

[Voltaire 5,322]

we leave in 6 months, Ahmadinejad takes them over in 6.5 months

 

Not a good thing. This guy is the Hitler of the modern world. We cannot be ignorant when it comes to dealing with this guy. The Iraqi presence is good for that one reason, it gives us another front to be able to use if force is necessary. The Generals know this, Bush knows this, and the Dems will have to figure it out...

 

Besides your statement that American people have shown that they want us out of Iraq doesn't add up. The exit polls showed that most Americans voted against republicans because of scandals and perceived corruption not because of Iraq.

 

If Iraq was on the top of the list for the Dems to resolve, why was Murtha denied the speaker of the house position?

 

 

Every exit poll I saw listed Iraq as #1, Also Murtha wasn't running for speaker he was running for majority leader and lost because of political reasons having little to do with Iraq. The Dems had already settled on Steny Hoyer since he worked so hard in electing new members and a last minute push by Pelosi wasn't enough to help Murtha.

[TD Ryan2 316]

It's not even about Bush, until people get that out of their head and take a step back to look at the big picture they'll never figure it out. If we concede it will lead to bigger problems on our own soil. We will appear vulnerable and weak.

 

defining a "win" and "loss" is always a tricky thing... and really, no matter what, those who oppose the US will ALWAYS claim they've won... we could nuke the entire focking middle east... turn in into a sea of glass... and some rag head will crawl out of a cave a proclaim that he defeated United States because of Allah's will.

 

Between Shock & Awe, the toppling of Saddam statues, the incarceraction and conviction of Saddam, and basically the occupation of every major city... I'm pretty comfortable saying that we defeated Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government.

 

 

If we back out of Iraq, I would suggest we perform exercises in American cities that prepare us if a nuke goes off or if chemical weapons are used against us. They will shift their focus to our homeland.

 

Hate is like dead... it's an absolute... you either hate or you do not... you're either dead or you are not.

Those who want to nuke us already HATE us. Their disdain and anger can NOT become any greater.

*IF* they had the capabilities to nuke or WMD our soil, they would do it regardless of where our troops are fighting. It wouldn't matter if we were in Iraq or out of Iraq... if they had the ability to attack us in that manner, they'd do it.

 

The fact is we aren't leaving anytime soon. There is no way our military leaders will let that happen. We need to be in Iraq because of Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

 

and Levin's suggested course of action (my original post) includes leaving a military presence there along with convening an international summit that will aid with both the politics and resources needed to reconstruct Iraq.

 

 

ETA: What we need to do is start a 3rd campaign to figure out how to win the damn thing. Some things definitely need to be changed. Maybe the Democrats will help now because they can get credit for helping us win

 

 

can you define "win the damn thing". What constitutes a "win".

IMO, we've won the war part. We've failed in the nation building part.

[What is the deal? 1]

Every exit poll I saw listed Iraq as #1, Also Murtha wasn't running for speaker he was running for majority leader and lost because of political reasons having little to do with Iraq. The Dems had already settled on Steny Hoyer since he worked so hard in electing new members and a last minute push by Pelosi wasn't enough to help Murtha.

yeah, my bad I confused the Majority Leader w/ Speaker (Pelosi's post) while posting quickly from work. Either way for the Dems to throw mud at each other makes a lot of sense. Just tells you nothing is beneath them.

 

I'm from Nebraska, and just watched Senator Ben Nelson (NE- Dem) on TV last night. He said we need a plan for staying not a plan for leaving. I agree with the assessment. Iraq puts us in a strategic position in the region to prepare for further problems and defeat there wouild send a loud message to our enemies across the globe.

 

The Dems are not going to get us out in 6 months or a year just because they said they would...won't be the 1st time they don't follow through on their big ticket....what we need to do is revise our current strategy and processes there. It's obviously not working...

[TD Ryan2 316]

 

Maybe the Democrats will help now because they can get credit for helping us win

 

Either way for the Dems to throw mud at each other makes a lot of sense. Just tells you nothing is beneath them

 

The Dems are not going to get us out in 6 months or a year just because they said they would...won't be the 1st time they don't follow through on their big ticket

 

 

 

see, this is the kind of crap that makes you look foolish.

I don't care about Dems and Repubs.

I want your thoughts on the issue without the partisan mud slinging.

 

I would post the exact same sentiments if you were a torridposter bashing the evil Rebubs.

Your statement that this isn't about Bush is spot on.

 

If we concede it will lead to bigger problems on our own soil. We will appear vulnerable and weak.

 

We need to be in Iraq because of Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

 

we need a plan for staying not a plan for leaving. I agree with the assessment. Iraq puts us in a strategic position in the region to prepare for further problems and defeat there wouild send a loud message to our enemies across the globe.

 

what we need to do is revise our current strategy and processes there. It's obviously not working...

 

 

see, this is good stuff. I'd really like to hear more on these opinions without the snarky jabs in between because I don't focking care about democrats and republicans.

 

hopefully, you can help me understand more of why and how you think the way you do.

[What is the deal? 1]

defining a "win" and "loss" is always a tricky thing... and really, no matter what, those who oppose the US will ALWAYS claim they've won... we could nuke the entire focking middle east... turn in into a sea of glass... and some rag head will crawl out of a cave a proclaim that he defeated United States because of Allah's will.

 

Between Shock & Awe, the toppling of Saddam statues, the incarceraction and conviction of Saddam, and basically the occupation of every major city... I'm pretty comfortable saying that we defeated Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government.

 

can you define "win the damn thing". What constitutes a "win".

IMO, we've won the war part. We've failed in the nation building part.

I would say a win is when the country is secure enough that when we decrease our presence that the radicals don't take over the country within a few months. Meaning the Iraq security forces are ready to go and responsible enough to stand on their own feet. Where we can have an Embassy and base there without worrying that someone is going to blow it up everyday.

 

I wouldn't say we failed. That indicates it's over and we never accomplished anything. We have made mistakes. We need to learn from them and develop a new strategy...

 

Your question to define "win" is a good one though. This is what the policy makers need to develop. Solid goals and a timeline for progress (not for withdrawal)

 

Between Shock & Awe, the toppling of Saddam statues, the incarceraction and conviction of Saddam, and basically the occupation of every major city... I'm pretty comfortable saying that we defeated Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government.

Hate is like dead... it's an absolute... you either hate or you do not... you're either dead or you are not.

Those who want to nuke us already HATE us. Their disdain and anger can NOT become any greater.

*IF* they had the capabilities to nuke or WMD our soil, they would do it regardless of where our troops are fighting. It wouldn't matter if we were in Iraq or out of Iraq... if they had the ability to attack us in that manner, they'd do it.

by removing ourselves from the region they can shift their focus. They don't have to worry about us knocking on their backdoor anymore. Many organizations will shift their focus to how to destroy our homeland

 

and Levin's suggested course of action (my original post) includes leaving a military presence there along with convening an international summit that will aid with both the politics and resources needed to reconstruct Iraq.

what kind of military presence? How many troops? How will they be protected from the radicals? Who's going to be involved in this "international summit"? are they willing to assist?

 

 

Bottom line, we aren't going anywhere. Sorry to spoil it for everyone who thought voting a democrat in office would change things...

[TD Ryan2 316]

by removing ourselves from the region they can shift their focus. They don't have to worry about us knocking on their backdoor anymore.

 

Iraq is only ONE country in the region where there is hatred for the US... the idea that we're "knocking on their back door"... we're knocking on ONE door out of thousands that exist in the area.

 

Are we "knocking on their back doors" in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan? Does being in Iraq really make that much more of a difference in how readilly/quickly we can strike if/when they set up their villains' hideouts again?

 

Israel is our security camera for the area... maybe Kuwait too... but what are we gonna' do? Take over the whole middle east to insure absolute security and control?

 

And that brings us back to the question we both share. What is a win? What is our goal? I guess without having any of this defined, it makes it difficult to assess the correct course of action.

[What is the deal? 1]

Iraq is only ONE country in the region where there is hatred for the US... the idea that we're "knocking on their back door"... we're knocking on ONE door out of thousands that exist in the area.

 

Are we "knocking on their back doors" in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan? Does being in Iraq really make that much more of a difference in how readilly/quickly we can strike if/when they set up their villains' hideouts again?

 

Israel is our security camera for the area... maybe Kuwait too... but what are we gonna' do? Take over the whole middle east to insure absolute security and control?

 

And that brings us back to the question we both share. What is a win? What is our goal? I guess without having any of this defined, it makes it difficult to assess the correct course of action.

I am pretty sure having a presence in between Syria and Iran is a strategic advantage. Those are my two main concerns in the area- as long as Pakistan doesn't get taken over by radicals.

[PackerAttacker 0]

Question: How do any of these answers/arguments change when there is another terrorist attack?

 

The answers shouldnt change if someone is passionate about their position... but I guarantee you everyone will start singing a different tune. Personally, I think this pointing fingers politics is bringing us down hard. Everyone will change their thoughts and blame the other party for whatever reason. A whole bunch of "mistakes" wll be pointed out in hindsight. Its guaranteed.

 

Sorry this got a little off topic.

[parrot 789]

I am pretty sure having a presence in between Syria and Iran is a strategic advantage. Those are my two main concerns in the area- as long as Pakistan doesn't get taken over by radicals.

What is the strategic advantage to having a presence between Syria and Iran?