Bush's Plan

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Bush's Plan

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

More troops.

In my best Governor of California imitation voice:

"Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. And hear the lamentation of their women."

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Roper wrote:

More troops.

In my best Governor of California imitation voice:

"Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. And hear the lamentation of their women."

You forgot my personal favorite: "It's not a tumor!"

TitusTodd · Senior Member

If the Iraqis don't take responsibility for their country we cannot succeed. We'll have to say we tried but we failed. Truth is truth.

However, I do support a stepped up attempt to pacify Baghdad. If that does not succeed, then we pull out the extra troops. We will not get support from a majority in this country to do what may be necessary to eventually get Iraq where we want it to be. No one wants a long engagement but, frankly, that is probably what it would take. How long did we occupy Japan after World War II? 7 years - with Okinawa and Iwo Jima being under US control another 16-20 years. Now, there are definitely differences namely including the militant opposition by some groups in Iraq unlike nothing we experienced in Japan during the occupation.

The picture is much bigger than Iraq but many are too narrowly focused on it. With mention of Iran and Syria I think Bush is trying to keep the focus more regional as it should be. The action in Iraq, despite all those who state otherwise, is truly an effort to combat terrorism but it is not a short term effort. The fruits of our efforts are not going to be enjoyed immediately. It is to foment change in the region and the Islamic community as a whole that will lesson support for terrorism. Apparently, too many in the US do not have the patience necessary for success.

If we leave Iraq prematurely, either the country will fall apart and/or we will see Iran/Syria dominate and control to a point they will have greater power and control over the region. I hope I don't have to state what a danger that is.

I don't have much confidence in how this is all transpiring. Bush needs to be more blunt and forceful in describing the situation and possible consequences. I'm disappointed with so many in this country who are stuck in the short-term. So many don't know their history and don't look beyond the current day.

There is no easy answer to the problems we face in Iraq, the region, and with Islamic extremism. We have to keep a strong face or the problems will only get bigger. I really believe we will have to confront Iran because they cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. We may have to strike and in the near future to destroy their nuclear capability.

The conflict has been forseen. When the it comes to head, who knows but we are on the road. Maybe pressure in the US will see us pull back but it will only be a matter of time before we are drawn back in in a manner that I think will only hasten events.

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 10:16, 2007-01-11

Fregramis · Senior Member

Had we not gone into Iraq, the same left wing nuts who say we have not finished the job in Afghansitan would be clamoring to bring them home from there instead. War is never the answer in their minds, unless we are winning, or it was World War II.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Excellent analysis, TitusTodd.

I'm rethinking my opinion on Harry Reid. He made the following statement in an interview with NPR's Michele Norris on "All Things Considered" today. Responding to the President's speech about Iraq, Reid stated:

"I don't think it is the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam. I think it's the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of our country."

What an irresponsible thing to say. At a time when our representatives and senators need to work with the administration to more clearly define our plan for Iraq and work toward achievable objectives, Reid spews out this unproductive chunk of partisan vomit.

I really wanted to like Reid, precisely because he's of the same faith I am. I really hoped he would be the kind of leader who would actually seek guidance on important issues. At this point, it seems like politics is more important than truth or even reason.

eta: On the other hand, maybe it's a good thing he's becoming so polarizing. Maybe that will create enough gridlock to keep the government from passing more legislation to regulate my life for the next few years.

-- Edited by Roper at 21:16, 2007-01-11

Fregramis · Senior Member

There is a great editorial at Newsmax that shows what we have to lose if we pull out of Iraq too soon. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/11/85813.shtml?s=lh

The author is confident Bush's plan will work. I hope it works....

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Fregramis wrote:

Had we not gone into Iraq, the same left wing nuts who say we have not finished the job in Afghansitan would be clamoring to bring them home from there instead. War is never the answer in their minds, unless we are winning, or it was World War II.

99% of those people were too young to even be more than a young child during WWII, so they are looking at it through romanticized rose colored glasses at best.

War is never a good thing to have to conduct, but the carnage from WWI and WWII made a lot of people take up a new paradigm that "never again" will we do such nastiness, particularly with the advent of the cold war and the realization that statistically, weapons could now destroy all of civilization, infrastructure, and population within hours. Now, we are under the idea that armed conflict can be held to minimum with limited damage and bloodshed and then everything is gonna be honky-dory. And this is the environment in which petty tyrants and demogogues thrive and become entrenched. They have nothing to fear from the free world. We didn't learn after Korea that this is not the way to conduct and win a war that is thrust upon us. We didn't learn immediately after Vietnam, but eventually did. Grenada and Panama, we went in with overwhelming force and completed the objective and peace has prevailed since then. Desert Storm likewise, overwhelming force, objective completed (which was the liberation of Kuwait, not the toppling of a dictatorship in the region). Then comes Clinton and we're back to the limited model of engagement. Insurgencies within Iraq crumble due to lack of support from the outside world (with Iran chompin' at the bits no less). Over a decade goes by, and intelligence (whether it was right or wrong) shows push is coming to shove and the dictatorship of Iraq is shown (again regardless of if it was right or wrong) to have had some indirect hand in the WTC attack or is allying himself with that band of gadiantans, nor has he shown he has been compliant or made progress towards becoming compliant with the terms of the armistace from Desert Storm.

We go in with not quite an overwhelming force and defeat the enemy as it's forces melt and the regime implodes. There was never really a surrender signed from what I remember, let alone an unconditional surrender. Only a pronouncement by our Commander in Chief that major fighting had ceased. Why? Because the enemy had ceased to be a threat from an organized fighting force and it would appease people in congress. Various guerilla groups took their place in the form of "militias" and the like. And since then, we've been working to rebuild a nation where no peace was signed between the ant-Baathists and the coalition forces, let alone all the parties that claim to be stakeholders. And the condition now is basically a vendetta (not a civil war as Reid and others call it) between opposing factions within the country now.

Yes, we need to have an overwhelming force there and finish the job the right way instead of playing the appeasement part to everybody. Sen. Reid and his ilk need to shut their traps and do something productive if they insist on using diplomacy instead of simply continuing their rhetoric of "Bush is wrong, it doesn't matter what he does... he is wrong. Oh, and by the way, we really don't have anything substantive to offer as alternative... but Bush is wrong."