Iraq vs Sadr
April 2nd, 2008 at 02:36pm Mark Noonan
Austin Bay clarifies the situation:
For four years, the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqi government have intermittently sparred with Sadr, sometimes in parliament, sometimes in the streets.
The Iraqi government’s strategy has been to bring former insurgents into the political process. Since interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi articulated that goal in mid-2004, the central government’s complex array of enemies has sought to thwart that program.
Saddam’s old cohorts managed to convince themselves that if they spread enough money around, killed enough people and hammered the U.S. electorate with bloody headlines the United States would leave and the Iraqi government would eventually collapse — and they would return to power. Saddam’s capture, trial and execution has all but snuffed out the old-line Baathists. Recall Maliki stoutly defended his decision to carry out the court’s sentence of capital punishment. He bet with Saddam dead the tyrant’s cult of personality would wither. It has.
Al-Qaida pursued the same strategy of blood for headlines. Al-Qaida in Iraq tried to ignite a sectarian war — its now-dead emir, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, made that goal explicit in February 2004. Al-Qaida massacred en masse, to the point that U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D for Defeatist) declared the war in Iraq lost. Then, the Sunni tribes in Anbar turned on al-Qaida. Sunni political integration is by no means complete, but al-Qaida has failed.
Now the Shia-led Iraqi government focuses on its chief Shia nemesis. How the Iraqi government handles Sadr matters. In August 2004, Sadr’s thugs grabbed the Grand Mosque in Najaf. Sadr was counting on Americans to bomb the mosque. The United States opted to follow the political lead of Shia Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Sistani’s aides told coalition officers: “Let us deal with Sadr. We know how to handle him and will do so. However, the coalition must not make him a martyr.”
The Iraqi way often appears to be indecisive, until you learn to look at its counter-insurgency methods in the frame of achieving political success, instead of the frame of American presidential elections.
One thing our domestic left doesn’t understand - and can’t understand, because their view of Iraq is colored by a series of lies they’ve told themselves over the years - is that Iraq is, indeed, its own country. We’re there to help, but we don’t dictate policy - President Bush very much knows that if the Iraqis won’t get themselves together, nothing the US can do will make it happen. This means that we have to allow the Iraqi politico-military situation to resolve itself over time - and some times this will mean great frustration for us. We can’t set their goals for them and we can’t set a time table - things don’t work like a machine in any social organism, and even less so in the chaotic social organism known as Iraq. A civil society is emerging in Iraq - but it is just that; emerging. It isn’t there yet in all its glory - it can’t be taken for granted, as we take our own civil society. But if we keep our promises and show the grit and determination necessary, then that Iraqi civil society will become predominant, and will be our great gift not just to the Iraqi people, but to all the peoples of the Arab/Moslem world.
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
44 Comments
1. jerry | April 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Mark-
What lies have the domestic left told ourselves about Iraq? You are right though in that Iraqi’s are the only ones who can fix the predictament they find themsleves in. Our presence does not help them fix it though, we are just enabling the feeble unpopular Maliki Militia to retain power. Power he has no intention of sharing with the Sadrist, Sunnis or Kurds. Mailik is our welfare queen and unless we cut him off from the US teet no real resolution will occur. It is time for some tough love on our part and some personal responsibility on part of the Iraqis.
2. Dennis | April 2nd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Mark says, “Iraq is, indeed, its own country. We’re there to help, but we don’t dictate policy.”
Anyone who believes we don’t dictate policy in Iraq is purely daft. We essentially wrote their law on oil revenue sharing, and then threatened to withhold financial and military support if it wasn’t passed.
From the Independent in UK:
Critics fear that given Iraq’s weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come. “Iraq would end up with the worst possible outcome,” said Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry. He said the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the US government, which had a representative working in the American embassy in Baghdad for several months.
“Three outside groups have had far more opportunity to scrutinise this legislation than most Iraqis,” said Mr Muttitt. “The draft went to the US government and major oil companies in July, and to the International Monetary Fund in September. Last month I met a group of 20 Iraqi MPs in Jordan, and I asked them how many had seen the legislation. Only one had.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/blood-and-oil-how-the-west-will-profit-from-iraqs-most-precious-commodity-431119.html
3. DBM | April 2nd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I personally always knew “that Iraq is, indeed, its own country”. Can’t speak for all us leftists, but at least I knew. Maybe I should have took more effort to spread the word. My bad.
Um, don’t we at least get a say in dictating policy? We’re investing in their success, in blood, dollars, stature, and lives. And like all investors, don’t we have the right to some input or expectation of results?
You know the possible consequences of this, don’t you? Without “Goals and a timeline”, you’re either proposing that we’ll never leave no matter how remote the possibility for success, or that when we do make that decision, it’ll be abrupt and chaotic.
4. SteaM | April 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I hear they are building Disney Land-Iraq. Right next to United States-The Palace… er I mean the US Embassy.
5. FoolYouTwice | April 2nd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Do you think Mark even remembers or cares what he has wrote in the past?
But Mark, you have said that we have to stay in Iraq until we achieve victory. Victory is a stable, democratic Iraq allied with the US. You admit now that this may never happen, no matter what we as a country do. How can you logically square up those two points of view? Well, I will just tell you now, you can’t. But I eagerly await your tortured reply.
6. Sunny | April 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Mark, you and many of the far right fanatics just don’t seem to be able to grasp what has been happening for the past five years. You seriously need to educate yourself on what has happened and is happening in Iraq. To say that the left’s views are colored by lies about Iraq is delusional on your part. You just cannot seem to grasp or face the truth about Iraq - the thousands of lives lost, both American and Iraqi, the loss of national treasure, the loss of respect across the world for attacking a nation that did not attack ours and frankly, had no ability to attack the US. Yes, I agree, Iraq is it own country and was when we attacked it. For you to continue to defend the actions of the Bush administration and to attempt to keep coming up with excuses for doing so and how wonderful things are makes me concerned for your mental health. How one can continue to attempt to find positive views on what has happend in Iraq for the past five years is not accepting the reality of going on. You live in a very narrow world, refusing to venture out past Fox News and your other safe sources of news that will support your own views. I dare you to start listening to other news programs and keep an open mind while doing so - that not everyone is the evil liberal msm. I really do not think you dare let yourself do this - because you would eventually have to admit that you have been duped.
7. Plantation Owner | April 2nd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I see Sunny wants the Iraqis back under the thumbs of Saddam, Uday and Cusay.
Sunny you loyally covered most of the talking points that has been spoon fed to you by the Dummycrats.
It’s amazing that you libs are so easily deceived. The majority of your party called for action again Saddam and voted to remove him. Of course, this was most likely due to political expediency. When the clean up started and the terrorists started stirring up the insurgency, the Iranian involvement only then did the Dummycrats started speaking against this war - again for political exediency.
Your party changes its mind everytime the polls change. That is no way to lead a nation. But you, dumbasses, are too short-sighted to see that.
I love how you talk of keeping an open mind when you do not acknowledge facts that go against the propaganda you spew.
8. Arctic Fox | April 2nd, 2008 at 5:40 pm
So what happens in October if the Sadrists DO win a huge victory in the Iraqi elections? Hamas won a lot of states in Gaza, and eventually the ruling party had to dispossess them of the seats by declaring the party illegal. Hardly democratic.
As I’ve said here before, there’s a lot of posturing going on before the prospective Iraqi electorate, who are (contrary to apparent right wing opinion on this site) Islamic and therefore take an active interest in the Islamic method of posturing, shows of strength and displays of weakness. Maliki tried a show of strength demanding an unconditional handover of weapons from Sadr. It didn’t work. His demand turned into a somewhat weak request for weapons in return for money, and his immovable non-negotiable deadline of 29th March turned into a flexible deadline of 8th April (subject to revision if it’s not met).
Let’s see if you right wingers are prepared to let Iraq be its own country if Sadr wins a majority, because his party has one major objective: get all foreign troops out of Iraq. Let’s just see if both Bush and the Right are prepared to respect that if it does happen, because I really don’t think they are.
9. Rich | April 2nd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
“As I’ve said here before, there’s a lot of posturing going on before the prospective Iraqi electorate, who are (contrary to apparent right wing opinion on this site) Islamic and therefore take an active interest in the Islamic method of posturing, shows of strength and displays of weakness.”
If this is your definition of victory than would you not agree that the U.S. is winning the war? After all, Sadr, Al- Qaeda and Iran have demanded we leave Iraq, and we are still there. Still building bases, and still have our weapons. Is that a loss of face for, Sadr, Al-Qaeda, and Iran?
10. Arctic Fox | April 2nd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
No. If a Christian army occupies a Muslim land, the Muslims will want them to leave. Not a difficult concept to understand.
We are still there because we control the incumbent government, which we after all helped set up. This October will see an election where te incumbent government could lose overall party to an opposition classified by the US as “terrorist”. If this happens, then the US will have to decide which is priority - maintaining that, due to its actions, there is democracy in Iraq, even if that means a “terrorist” party is in democratic control, or showing that democracy to be false by putting more emphasis on removing the “terrorist party that is backed by Iran”.
11. bongoman | April 2nd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
As Arctic Fox points out, this will be the true test of all our rhetoric about democracy in Iraq.
What is our priority? Let the Iraqis choose for themselves whether they want us there?
Or our desire for permanent military and air bases in Iraq so that we can project military power in the Middle East?
The US has shown time and time again that it will only tolerate ‘democracy’ if it is in support of US strategic interests. We are quite happy to undermine and subvert democracy overseas if it is not ‘going our way’.
12. DBM | April 2nd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Plantation Owner,
You sure can coin zany terms!! Dummycrats! What a hoot! I disagreed with everything you said until I read that! Well, I don’t want to be a “dummy” so I’m gonna have to rethink things.
But you’re gonna have to help me because I’m having trouble sorting through your logic and verifying your facts.
Like, “majority of your party called for action again Saddam and voted to remove him”? You talking about the Iraq Resolution? The one where 62% of Democratic Congress reps voted “Nay”?
Maybe you just mean the Senate where a majority of Democratic Senators voted “yea”? And a good thing they did too, because just a few days before the vote, many of them were briefed in a closed session that Sadaam had the capacity to hit the eastern seaboard with UAVs armed with biological and chemical weapons!
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s012804b.html
Maybe it was like you said. Those Dummycrat Senators voted for action just because that was the way the polls told them to vote, but having the bejesus scared out of them probably helped!!
And don’t get mad at me, but I need help on why those who oppose the war now are so stupid. Walk me through it. I mean, haven’t they been right about, well, everything and your side has been right about, well, nothing? (WMD, Chalabi, troop levels, looting, disbanding the military, Debathification, oil revenues, “dead enders”, etc, etc)
Look, I’m switching sides because I don’t wanna be a Dummycrat no more, but I gotta know: When you guys gonna get something right?
13. DBM | April 2nd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
And, Plantation Owner, one more request?
How we gonna handle this Obama character?
Darned if he wasn’t against the war before it happened, and has stayed consistent since. And, boy, for a Dummycrat, he sure did call it right.
Our enemies are gonna point to this like he’s some psychic, or bestowed with extraordinary good judgment. So, we gotta have a plan. First, I’ll leave it to you to coin a good nickname for him - THAT’S YOUR SPECIALTY. Next, we need a story that deflects people from saying, “Geez, he sure called that one, maybe he’s right about other things too.” Maybe we can spin it that he’s really an Islamoterrorist Mole, and had inside information. I bet that’ll work. Lots of people on our side even believe he took the oath of office on a Koran, even though it was that other colored fella.
14. NeoClown | April 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Yeah, so what. Dick Cheney got it right 9 years befor the war.
Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: Because if we’d gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.
Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it — eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.
It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families — it wasn’t a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?
Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.
15. bongoman | April 2nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
And then he fell in with the PNAC crowd, and before you know it we were off on an imperialist, militaristic adventure with no end in sight. Shameless.
16. Freedom1 | April 2nd, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Arctic Fox: “No. If a Christian army occupies a Muslim land, the Muslims will want them to leave. Not a difficult concept to understand.”
So when do you demand that Christian America leave Afghanistan, a Muslim country with a government that the Christian USA helped set up?
Speaking of the Taliban, they reportedly “Stoned to Death Pakistani Couple Who Committed Adultery” - Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,345088,00.html
People need to wake up and get a clue that our Islamic enemy is in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the rest of the Islamic world, North Africa, Europe, Canada, Australia, the USA, South America, Bosnia, Thailand, etc., etc., etc.
This stupid, myopic view that Al Qaeda terrorists are only in Afghanistan and NEVER EVER in Iraq is just moronic.
17. What? | April 2nd, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Mark,
You are living in a dream world. Rumsfeld and Cheney hand-picked the future leader of Iraq, Chalabi, prior to the invasion. That did not work out too well. After that there really was no plan.
Bremer was working on a day-by-day basis trying to keep things going after Chalabi fell through.
Even if you were correct that Bush did not want to influence policy, you are ignoring the fact our very presence artificially influences politics in Iraq. If we were not there, a new social order would arise that we would likely not agree with. This is evident in the persistant sectarian violanece in the country as well as the influence of Iran. By staying we are preventing this new order from taking shape.
You point to a rising civil society. If such a society is emerging, it is doing so artificially because we are there protecting it and paying for it.
The question is:Once our guns and money that support these civil institutions are removed, will they withstand the imbedded prejudices between Sunnis and Shias as well as the influences of Iraq’s neighbors?
We won’t know this until we leave.
18. Arctic Fox | April 2nd, 2008 at 9:29 pm
And in our kitchens and under our beds and… everywhere! Run and hide! Give up all your liberties RIGHT NOW!
Sigh.
Firstly: Jesus commanded us to “love one another as I have loved you”. So what’s with this “Everyone who is a Muslim is the enemy - quick, start hating them” rubbish?
Secondly: I don’t demand anything. I thought the idea of going to Afghanistan was to catch Bin Laden, not to mess with their government. Still, as we haven’t caught Bin Laden I guess messing with their government is all we have left.
Thirdly: Yes. It’s brutal. It’s very brutal. But they don’t have repeat offenders. We end up spending a fortune incarcerating those who keep offending. Mind you, we do still practice the death penalty, so in that way the end result is the same as stoning. Might be less painful, but the end result is still the same.
Now, go and hide. There’s a Muslim in the next street, and you KNOW he’s a terrorist who wants to take your freedoms…
19. JD | April 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
One thing that people who have never been to Iraq fail to grasp is that we are in Iraq to establish permanent military bases to support a permanent U.S. military occupation of Iraq. It does not take a great stretch of imagination to figure out why we would occupy Iraq indefinitely (hint: three-letter word beginning with “o”).
20. Joe | April 2nd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
JD, would that word be the same as the acronym for Operation Iraqi Liberation?
21. Freedom1 | April 2nd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Arctic Fox,
You are such a coward and have your head firmly planted in the sand. Proof: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#attacks
Arctic Fox: “Firstly: Jesus commanded us to “love one another as I have loved you”.”
Yes, that’s true. That’s why I support and continue to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which deposed the brutal, bloody and medieval dictatorships of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist Regime and the Taliban.
Arctic Fox: “So what’s with this “Everyone who is a Muslim is the enemy - quick, start hating them” rubbish?”
I never said that. You did. I don’t believe that. You must.
22. js | April 2nd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
ya know Mark, you got a habit of drawing flies
these lib’s just dont get it
you cant expect to throw them pearls of wisdom and make them intellectually capable of understanding it
it just doesnt happen
23. Darva Conger | April 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Freedom1 said: “This stupid, myopic view that Al Qaeda terrorists are only in Afghanistan and NEVER EVER in Iraq is just moronic.”
Uh, Freedom1, our CIA says AQ is operating out of Pakistan.
And what did Bush say on 9/11/01:
“We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”
Now it is pretty clear Pakistan is “harboring” AQ. Yet apart from the odd Predator strike we’ve done nothing. And when Obama had the nerve to say he’d act on intel about AQ in Pakistan, you conservatives went bats***.
Why you guys are protecting Pakistan is strange. And you cannot with a straight face say they’ve done much to get AQ or Osama.
24. Freedom1 | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Darva Conger, “Uh, Freedom1, our CIA says AQ is operating out of Pakistan.”
D’uh. They’re operating out of 60 + nations, last I heard. Did you miss that it’s the Leftists who are saying that Al Qaeda is only in Afghanistan?!
Darva, you’ve got to understand one thing about Pakistan that sets it apart from every other Islamic nation - it has NUCLEAR WEAPONS. In addition to having a nuclear arsenal, a significant portion of the Pakistani peope are radical Islamists who support Osama bin Laden and support the Taliban.
Now, just what do you think would happen if the US violated Pakistani sovereignty and carpet bombed the AQ/Taliban portion of Pakistan? The Pakistani people might go berserk, overthrow the relatively moderate, relatively pro-Western Pakistani government and install an Islamic theocratic dictatorship based on Shari’a law and in full support of Osama bin Laden…with a NUCLEAR ARSENAL at its disposal. Then what???
25. capJ | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
wait Freedom? So now you are saying we are *NOT* attacking Pakistan because they have weapons of mass distruction.
On the other hand we supposedly *DID* attack Iraq because they had weapons of mass distruction..
God you guys are so confused on your rhetoric that you don’t know which way to argue anymore.. Whatever is conveient I suppose - huh. Peraps if you started with the facts, analyzed them, and came to conclusions rather than started with the conclusion you wanted and then back justfied it with psuedologic you wouldn’t be so easy to tear appart and humiliate…
26. Casper | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
“D’uh. They’re operating out of 60 + nations, last I heard.”
So why have we put most of out forces in Iran?
27. Casper | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
“The Pakistani people might go berserk, overthrow the relatively moderate, relatively pro-Western Pakistani government and install an Islamic theocratic dictatorship based on Shari’a law and in full support of Osama bin Laden…with a NUCLEAR ARSENAL at its disposal. Then what???”
I thought that would be your wildest fantasy, a chance to nuke a Muslim country.
28. Freedom1 | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:45 pm
“I thought that would be your wildest fantasy, a chance to nuke a Muslim country.” - Casper
No. I support the freedom of the 50 million Muslims of Iraq and Afghanistan from their medieval, bloodthirsty former Taliban and Ba’aathist regimes.
People like you, Casper, would prefer to have let those 25 million Iraqi Muslims languish in the torture, oppression and mass slaughter of Saddam’s tyrannical regime. Nuking a Muslim nation must be just a small step to people like you.
29. Freedom1 | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
25. capJ | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
CapJ, you can’t be this stupid, can you?!
30. Casper | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Actually, people like me would like to see our brave fighting men and women home, instead of stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. You are the one who hates Islam.
31. Freedom1 | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Yes, I hate Islam. I love Muslims. I want to free those Muslims from the physical tyranny of their dictatorships and from the spiritual tyranny of Islam.
You, Casper, would prefer to have let those 25 million Iraqi Muslims languish in the torture, oppression and mass slaughter of Saddam’s tyrannical regime. Nuking a Muslim nation must be just a small step to people like you.
32. Casper | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 pm
#26 opps, meant Iraq.
33. What? | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Really js,
Why do you even post? You have nothing to say. Are you just trying to irritate those who disagree with you. It is not working.
Every post where you toss out your hokie wisedom on liberals only goes to prove you cannot support any of your stances with rational arguments.
You should really sit down and re-evaluate your politics. Afterwards come back and give a spirited debate.
34. Casper | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:02 am
Freedom1,
When have I ever said anything positive about Saddam? When have I ever said I wanted to nuke anyone?
You are the one with all the hate.
35. Freedom1 | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:06 am
“When have I ever said anything positive about Saddam?” - Casper
When you opposed and continue to oppose the Iraq War. Your hatred for the 25 million Muslims of Iraq just oozes out of each of your posts on Iraq. How do you sleep at night?
“When have I ever said I wanted to nuke anyone?” - Casper
When have I? Don’t like the accusation, don’t throw it at me.
36. Casper | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 am
“When you opposed and continue to oppose the Iraq War. Your hatred for the 25 million Muslims of Iraq just oozes out of each of your posts on Iraq. How do you sleep at night?”
I don’t hate the Iraqis. I hate the stupid war. I have two daughters who have been diagnosed with PTSD along with some physical problems stemming from their time in Iraq.
“When have I? Don’t like the accusation, don’t throw it at me.”
You are right. I shouldn’t have accused you of wanting to nuke anyone.
37. Tractatus | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:32 am
What lies have the domestic left told ourselves about Iraq?
You have to understand, when Noonan calls something a lie, he is not making a statement about its veracity; he is making a statement about whether or not he believes it. Whether or not its true doesn’t really matter to him. If he doesn’t believe it, then it’s a lie even if it’s the truth.
38. Freedom1 | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 am
“You are right. I shouldn’t have accused you of wanting to nuke anyone.” - Casper
Thank you.
“I don’t hate the Iraqis. I hate the stupid war.” - Casper
I hate war, too. But, if we hadn’t gone to war, those 25 million Muslims of Iraq would still be enduring rape, torture, mutilation, and mass murder by the Saddam regime. Those 25 million Muslims would still be suffering horribly, continuously with no end in sight.
“I have two daughters who have been diagnosed with PTSD along with some physical problems stemming from their time in Iraq.” - Casper
Well, I salute their service and their bravery. They have directly helped to free 25 million Muslims. You have a lot to be proud of in your courageous daughters. I will say a prayer for their physical and mental healing.
I know a couple of Marines who have fought in Iraq. One of those Marines has done 3 tours in Iraq. War is hell, but sometimes necessary to destroy the evils that arise in the world. Like Saddam Hussein’s vicious regime.
39. Mark Noonan | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:19 am
jerry,
Well, just as one for-instance: the left told us that the campaign in Iraq was lost in 2004.
We could go into it, but all we’d be doing is opening up the can of worms and I’d have Diana in here bringing up Democratic talking points from 2003…but, at bottom, pretty much 100% of what the left believes about Iraq is fabricated.
40. Mark Noonan | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 am
As an aside - I should delete almost all leftwing posts here; none of you lefty dimwits have actually addressed what Bay discussed…what is the matter with you cowards? Can’t you even for once show an ounce of courage and defend your views?
41. What? | April 3rd, 2008 at 3:54 am
Mark,
If you want people to respond only to the article, don’t add your own comments which 1) taunt people into a response; and 2) propose a pretty skewed view on the United States’ involvment in Iraq.
As for the article, it is dismissing failures as successes. Remember, the surge was a result of Iraq’s ineffectiveness to police its own country. The problem wasn’t how the government was dealing with the insurgency, the problem was it wasn’t dealing with it. Bush outright admitted this.
42. FoolYouTwice | April 3rd, 2008 at 11:15 am
I notice you haven’t responded to any of the issues brought up on this thread, yet we are the cowards? You stated this:
So, if commenting on something you said in this very thread is off topic then I guess I don’t understand what your definition of off topic is.
How can you state that we have to stay in Iraq until we achieve victory, yet also admit that there is nothing we can do to get Iraqis together. If there is nothing we can do to make this happen, then you have to admit that achieving victory in your terms, is completely outside of our control. Victory in your terms may never be possible, and we cannot make it happen according to you. Your views are logically inconsistent and quite foolish.
43. Mark Noonan | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
What and Fool,
No, you’re just being chicken - Austin Bay put forth a cogent argument in favor of our effort in Iraq and all you on the left has done is hurl insult at the effort…tell us, please, just what benefit will accrue to Iraq, the middle east and the United States if we withdraw right away? Defend your worthless views, lefties, if you have the guts to do so.
44. What? | April 3rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Um Mark,
Re-read the article. He isn’t putting forth views as to why we should stay in Iraq. He is explaining how the Iraqi government is trying to defeat the insurgency and how we need to be patient. But his argument ignores the reality that the Iraqi stratedgy has failed to work.
I am not insulting the effort by I saying that the Iraqi government has been incapable of defeating the insurgency on its own. This was the conclusion of the administration you originally named this website after. The U.S. strategy in Iraq for most of the war was to provide support and train Iraqi forces to fight for themselves. Our stratedgy ws to let them fight there stratedgy.The surge was a response to the failure of that strategy. We had to take a pro-active role in defeating the insurgency and give the government an opportunity to function. Now, as we are again drawing down troops, the violence is going back up.
This takes me back to the point I made above. Our presence in Iraq is an artificial one. Once we are gone, the political scene will change accordingly.
I would throw the reverse question back at you. What is the benefit if we stay? Do we continue to pay for a war that, at this point, shows no sign of ending in the near future? Couldn’t that money and man power go towards better detterants of terroism, like the war in Afghanistan? Do we continue to appear as occupiers to the Middle East? Do we continue to fight a war we had no reason to start?
At this point, talking about benefits is not really relevant. Either choice is a bad choice with bad consequences.
Also, Mark, you are looking kind of desparate by calling our views worthless and cowardly. C’mon, rasie the level of debate just a bit.