GOP vs Dem Iraq Strategy

[MajorMatt]

It seems the week of "working together" is fading away and the usual attacks are resuming from both sides.

Now the GOP is accusing the Dems of having no real plan for Iraq other than just leaving.

Though I wonder what the GOP plan has been all along, just stay there until it's fine?

[SDW2001]

And absent in all of this is any talk of victory from either side. We've given up.

[tonton]

Honestly, can anyone here even offer a definition of "victory" in this war? That's something that either party would be wise to define as soon as possible. Yet it's never been done, has it? Go ahead, give it your best shot.

There's this vague idea of "crushing" the insurgents... but honestly speaking, insurgency, or even terrorism, is not a problem that will be gone forever, before or after the Americans and their faux alliance have left.

The fallacy in this war is the idea that we are fighting a singular enemy, like we do when we fight a regime. We are not fighting generals in Iraq. Nor Kings, Emporers, Fuhrers or Presidents... no one has the authority to "surrender" in a way that individual insurgents and terroists will stop terrorizing and... insurging. ;)

As such, there can be no difinitive "victory". Not now. Not in 18 months... not ever.

This "war on terror", like our nations' "war on murder" or our "war on theft"... is forever. We've put all our known murderers in jail, or on America's Most Wanted. Yet more murderers will emerge tomorrow... and tomorrow's tomorrow, ad infinitum.

There can be no victory, no surrender in this war. The only question is whether "our boys" are in direct line of fire, whether we're wasting our tax dollars on a wild goose chase, and whether we're swinging bats at a hornet's nest... or worse, fueling the flames of fanaticism and creating more terrorists than there could ever have been otherwise, barring our bungling intrusion into a very protectionist, proud culture.

Leave counterterrorism to the intelligence agencies. Not to boys with guns and no specific target who are apt to shoot at birds and rabbits.

Without a definition of victory here, or, as I contend, the very possibility of victory, how can anyone, be they Democrat, Republican or Green, have a plan for victory? To claim the Democrats have no plan for victory is fair enough... but to imply that they should, or that they even can, is at best double-you naivety and at worst, Rovian dishonesty.

[Aurora]

GOP stategy was no strategy, Demo strategy is lets get out of another vietnam. We didnt belong in Nam and we dont belong in Iraq. End of story. Stupid Neocons who never served got us into this one.

[@_@ Artman]

Iraqi oil fields and pipelines...

http://gb2.chinabroadcast.cn/report/showdown_iraq/images/Iraqi_oilfields.gif

Permanent U. S. military bases in Iraq...

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/iraq-base-map.jpg

In time the troops will be scaled down...but we ain't leaving. :no:

What our administration has given the Democrats is a conundrum. How do we "cut and run" without "staying the course"?

I don't have the answer. We should have had the foresight that our dependency (and greed) on oil would take us on this course 30 years ago.

[BRussell]

Let's face it, the Democrats aren't in the executive branch, and therefore have effectively no impact whatsoever on Iraq.

[Aurora]

If we had a energy policy rather then just buy more oil policy we wouldnt even be there.

[sammi jo]

In time the troops will be scaled down...but we ain't leaving. :no:

Absolutely. The investment in permanent military bases is massive. I can't quote a$ figure in what has been directly spent by the US Government on these bases, but they are like small US cities. Similarly re. the new US Embassy in Baghdad, which covers an area larger than the Vatican. We are not about to quit, leaving these multi $10s of billion facilities to the insurgents. We ae staying there, probably permanently. I feel that the length of the war is directly related to the length of the occupation: without the US as a focal point for all the insurgencies, they wouldl instead turn increasingly on each other.. with a period of utter chaos (as if whats happening now isnt that).. and out the power vacuum would rise a Saddam Hussein-like strongarm (dictator)... and we would all be back to square one. No democracy for Iraq, but at least relative stability.

What our administration has given the Democrats is a conundrum. How do we "cut and run" without "staying the course"?

Search me. I wish the US government and media had taken the anti-war movement in 2002 and early 2003 seriously. Their dire predictions were spot on: Everything that they were warning against has taken place, and is taking place as we write....and even worse. The endless parade of Bush Administration officials, defense analysts, high ranking military personnel and (neo)conservative commentators who had a perpetual free lunch with the mainstream US media in the build-up to the war were absolutely pathetic. They got everything wrong; totally and utterly, 100% wrong. Their analyses were pie-in-the-sky fantasies of Lewis Carroll proportions that any 16 year old with half a brain, and a bit of a handle on human nature, could have seen through.....

I don't have the answer. We should have had the foresight that our dependency (and greed) on oil would take us on this course 30 years ago.

There is no answer, and nobody is going to be looking for one in the near future. The recent switch-over of power in Congress from GOP to Democrat will tell all. My take is that the GOP will take full advantage of what will be the Congressional Democrats' utter inability to deal with Iraq effectively. The GOP don't/didnt have the will, and the Dems do not have the spine. Sure they will pretend to make it appear as if they are trying to take some responsibility.... and people will be taken in...

The only way this will end... is when the US public gets so angry with the continuing astronomical waste of taxpayer funds, and human life, that they take matters into their own hands.

[NOFEER]

It seems the week of "working together" is fading away and the usual attacks are resuming from both sides.

Now the GOP is accusing the Dems of having no real plan for Iraq other than just leaving.

Though I wonder what the GOP plan has been all along, just stay there until it's fine?

the dems had no plan for anything other than antibush, antiwar, now they are in power they have to develope something, anything, so lets see, the draft and get out now , cut and run. seems everything they said before the election is being negated by military leadership and they are backing away from their hard line get out now approach. well they are in power then let them lead....hey dems do something or are you afraid to commit.

[addabox]

the dems had no plan for anything other than antibush, antiwar, now they are in power they have to develope something, anything, so lets see, the draft and get out now , cut and run. seems everything they said before the election is being negated by military leadership and they are backing away from their hard line get out now approach. well they are in power then let them lead....hey dems do something or are you afraid to commit.

Yeah! Now that the Republicans have fucked it up beyond all redemption, let's just see you put it back together again! Bet you can't! Nyah nyah nyah!

When Bush Republicans fuck something up, buddy, it stays fucked up.

[thuh Freak]

the dems had no plan for anything other than antibush, antiwar, now they are in power they have to develope something, anything, so lets see, the draft and get out now , cut and run. seems everything they said before the election is being negated by military leadership and they are backing away from their hard line get out now approach. well they are in power then let them lead....hey dems do something or are you afraid to commit.

Technically, the dems haven't even been sworn in yet. Also, the dems who've been elected vary on their Iraq ideas; some want us out RSN, some actually want us to stay. One thing working against the dems is the lack of a unified message; they need to pull together and decide where they stand. It will probably be some kind of compromise.

whatever they want to do though, the president isn't even bound by it. He is the CiC, and he decides war policy. It'll be hard for him to ignore the mandate from the people about this war, but he's been obstinate before.

[lunocrat]

James Baker should parachute into downtown Baghdad and shout, "Hi honey, I'm home!"

[SDW2001]

Honestly, can anyone here even offer a definition of "victory" in this war? That's something that either party would be wise to define as soon as possible. Yet it's never been done, has it? Go ahead, give it your best shot.

There's this vague idea of "crushing" the insurgents... but honestly speaking, insurgency, or even terrorism, is not a problem that will be gone forever, before or after the Americans and their faux alliance have left.

The fallacy in this war is the idea that we are fighting a singular enemy, like we do when we fight a regime. We are not fighting generals in Iraq. Nor Kings, Emporers, Fuhrers or Presidents... no one has the authority to "surrender" in a way that individual insurgents and terroists will stop terrorizing and... insurging. ;)

As such, there can be no difinitive "victory". Not now. Not in 18 months... not ever.

This "war on terror", like our nations' "war on murder" or our "war on theft"... is forever. We've put all our known murderers in jail, or on America's Most Wanted. Yet more murderers will emerge tomorrow... and tomorrow's tomorrow, ad infinitum.

There can be no victory, no surrender in this war. The only question is whether "our boys" are in direct line of fire, whether we're wasting our tax dollars on a wild goose chase, and whether we're swinging bats at a hornet's nest... or worse, fueling the flames of fanaticism and creating more terrorists than there could ever have been otherwise, barring our bungling intrusion into a very protectionist, proud culture.

Leave counterterrorism to the intelligence agencies. Not to boys with guns and no specific target who are apt to shoot at birds and rabbits.

Without a definition of victory here, or, as I contend, the very possibility of victory, how can anyone, be they Democrat, Republican or Green, have a plan for victory? To claim the Democrats have no plan for victory is fair enough... but to imply that they should, or that they even can, is at best double-you naivety and at worst, Rovian dishonesty.

Wow, that wasn't predictable. :err: I've noticed one of the left's most cherished talking points is to opine that "we can't define victory" in Iraq, therefore it is impossible to achieve.

I believe we can define victory. Victory is a stable, Democratic Iraq. Victory is a reduction or elimination of sectarian violence. Victory is a direction for rebuiliding the infrastructure and economy. That's what victory is, and you know it.

What you're saying, and what the Dems and most Republicans are saying is that it's impossible. Ironically, it now probably is....but it's our fault. If the President went on TV and said that we will do whatever it takes to achieve the above and then backed it up with more troops immediately, we'd win. We have to create despair in those who use terror to achieve their political goals. They have to know that as long as Iraqis and US soldiers are attacked, we will will be there. They have to know we absolutely never leave until we feel the country is secure.

But listen to us now. We've basically surrendered...and that includes most of the GOP.

[jimmac]

Wow, that wasn't predictable. :err: I've noticed one of the left's most cherished talking points is to opine that "we can't define victory" in Iraq, therefore it is impossible to achieve.

I believe we can define victory. Victory is a stable, Democratic Iraq. Victory is a reduction or elimination of sectarian violence. Victory is a direction for rebuiliding the infrastructure and economy. That's what victory is, and you know it.

What you're saying, and what the Dems and most Republicans are saying is that it's impossible. Ironically, it now probably is....but it's our fault. If the President went on TV and said that we will do whatever it takes to achieve the above and then backed it up with more troops immediately, we'd win. We have to create despair in those who use terror to achieve their political goals. They have to know that as long as Iraqis and US soldiers are attacked, we will will be there. They have to know we absolutely never leave until we feel the country is secure.

But listen to us now. We've basically surrendered...and that includes most of the GOP.



SDW there is no way to have victory in Iraq any more than there was in Vietnam. It's their ( the iraqi's ) turf. Or don't you get that?

Other than flattening the country and what would that accomplish?

[Aurora]

We shouldnt have ever gone into Iraq, if you cant admit that then you are in denial. There isnt anything to win. Sunni's hate Shia and vice a versa. Why be stuck in between the two when we have no business there in the first place. My fear is the politicians will want to send more troops which means another vietnam. Year after year of war with nothing to win or gain except for a shiite majority taking it over. George F'd this up because our interest was better served with Saddam running it rather then the shiites. The ones who think we can win something are the ones who never served. Like Bush,Rove,Cheney,Hastert,Libby,Frists,...... all republican wannabe Hero's.

How the hell do you decide who the bad guy is when they look just alike? Same crap was going on in vietnam and we saved them all by bombing the crap out of them? Well here we are in Iraq , we saved Iraq from Saddam by destroying the country. Now what stay the course? I dont think so. This is why we kicked the republicans out of power. Spin like secratarian violence,insurgents and whatever. What new spin phrase is Bush/Rove going to call this one now? America needs a real leader not the spinmasters and phrase twisters we have had for 6 years.
Embarrassed as Hell Im a American. Bush took the worlds support and pissed it away, going after Saddam and letting 911 Bin Laden get away.

[tonton]

I believe we can define victory. Victory is a stable, Democratic Iraq. Victory is a reduction or elimination of sectarian violence. Victory is a direction for rebuiliding the infrastructure and economy. That's what victory is, and you know it.
So aside from killing every single Iraqi (and foreign fighter) in the country, do you think, no matter how many troops we throw at them, we can make Iraqis stop fighting back? Honestly?

Is there a leader in Iraq that can surrender and make them stop fighting back? No.

If we kill every person in Iraq who has ever killed anyone or considered themselves capable of doing so (if we had a magic crystal ball and could tell which ones they were) would those left over not fight back? No. They would pick up guns and create bombs for the first time in their lives because we've just killed their brother.

The fact is, you cannot win this kind of war, without genocide levels of slaughter. I'm talking women, children, everybody killed. If there is one Iraqi left, he or she will fight back. So we'd have no choice but to kill them all.

Is that what you want to do?

[tonton]

Remember why the USSR collapsed? Went bankrupt.

The US Debt is NINE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!! That's $30000 for every American alive.

One of these days, that's going to cause Rome to fall. And that's exactly what the terrorists want most of all. More than dead Americans. They want the destruction of the nation's economy. And they're doing a fantastic job, with the help of people like SDW who just want to throw money and lives at an amorphous goose.

[addabox]

Remember why the USSR collapsed? Went bankrupt.

The US Debt is NINE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!! That's $30000 for every American alive.

One of these days, that's going to cause Rome to fall. And that's exactly what the terrorists want most of all. More than dead Americans. They want the destruction of the nation's economy. And they're doing a fantastic job, with the help of people like SDW who just want to throw money and lives at an amorphous goose.

An amorphous goose? I love you.