So is the continued health and well-being of OBL a 'Jhadist victory.' So are we to pick and choose the signals we send?

The Lebanon cease-fire is being spun as a Jihadist victory.

Most likely, any outcome in Iraq will be spun as a Jihadist victory. So what? How many lives is the difference in perception worth?

BTW, some of us are primarily concerned that the NIE showing growth of Jihadist recruits came out in April, and Dubya was giving speeches 4 months later talking about 'progress against the terrorists' as if everything was proceeding well in Iraq.

In fact, this administration has never told the truth about what's happening in Iraq. There are still, today, materiel shortages: weapons, ammunition and armor.

Nearly $9 billion has "gone missing" in Iraq. There's no way to know that money didn't end up buying weapons used to kill our soldiers.

Detainees for whom we paid $5,000 cash to neighbors, have turned out not to have been "terrorists" but have been made -- along with their families -- lifelong enemies of the US.

Iraqi solders we've trained turn out (predictably) to be more loyal to their tribes than the government. And the government has a very large, violently anti-US contingent.

Why on earth would the NIE show anything other than a progressive loss of safety?

No, I disagree with Bush calling off the dogs on Bin Laden, if he in fact did so. If I were Bush and I knew that Bin Laden had gone underground, I might make some public statements that we were calling off the dogs to see if he might pop his little head out of whatever hole he is hiding in and make a phone call or something.

Your position is one of defeatism. You have convinced yourself that there is no other outcome except defeat in Iraq. Therefore it really doesn't matter if we lose now or we lose later. The difference between us is that I haven't given up yet, you have.

LOL. I will never give up.

But continuing an obviously stupid strategy and continually expecting the results to change is not exactly sane.

What do you think is a possible path to victory in Iraq? I haven't heard a single, reasonable explanation yet of what that would look like.

It looks like this:

The US stays in Iraq and helps with fighting the insurgency until such time as the Iraqi government can take over the fight and either maintain the status quo or make headway. Over time, the Iraqi people finally figure out that THEY have to care about their country and fix it. At that point they will hopefully discover that peace and freedom really are in their best interests. Then they will begin to assist with the fight against the terrorists and begin to build a nation of freedom and peace.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1159381934.jpg

But the insurgency only exists to fight Americans. If we leave, there won't be any insurgency. If we stay, it will continue.

The Iraqi government has little sway over individual Iraqi soldiers. Reports show them to be very poorly educated and undisciplined. How can we make them "stand up?"

Will it be one generation of Iraqis or three before the idea of self-governance takes root? And could it take root in a civil war?

Finally -- and this is an unpopular truth for some -- terrorists are best fought with police work, not armies. Once the army has the daily mayhem reduced to a tolerable level, police could conceivably root out the "terrorists" (a really stupid term, since it refers to a tactic) -- or can we just call them violent radical Muslims?

While Iraqis are dealing with these internal challenges, they will not be a 'bulwark against Iran.' Meaning the 14 permanent bases we are building in Iraq would likely have to house American troops for at least another 10 years. maybe 20.

"The US stays in Iraq and helps with fighting the insurgency until such time as the Iraqi government can..."

I've never undestood how conservatives, republicans (the old school, cocktail & country club types I know & love) and self-described patriots can put control of our national security policy (much less the lives of our troops) in the hands of the rump government of a failed 3rd-world country. Of course, I know why the neocons can do that - they are extremist idealogues who will sacrifice anybody to their cause - hmmmm reminds me of...

Tech, I'm with you on every point but your first. I think they are predominantley fighting American because we are there, and we unite their focus (to a degree). Leaving will not end the insurgency; it will simply re-direct it internally. They are already fighting each other. Without our presence to distract them, that will intensify.

Your point about police work is spot on. They are the best qualified to find them before they strike, which is, after all, the goal. However, Iraqi-style police work may be affective in rooting out "terrorists", true, but then aren't we back to the same human-rights concerns we used to partially justify going in in the first place? Those kinds of police tactics won't be acceptable to whatever human-rights watchdogs take the reigns over there. It's going to be tough any way you look at it. And I'm leaning towards the three generations end of the spectrum.

First. let me say I appreciate the tone of this conversation with you, Jeff, and Rick. I wish they were all like this.

We don't disagree much, Jeff. It's really semantics. With us gone, a lot of the motivation for the insurgency is removed. We can agree on that.

We probably also can agree that a general economic boom would reduce, if not eliminate a lot of the insurgent activity -- the feelings would still be there, but the actions (terrorism) would drop.

What would 'former insurgents' do if Americans weren't there as a lightning rod? Well, I won't argue that they'd turn into good citizens. Some would probably find some other mischief to perpetrate. It's probably hard to re-incorporate people like that into society.

Would some turn their energies into creating political parties? I think that's a definite possibility.

I think our continued presence gives insurgents a focal point. And insurgents are the majority of the folks we are fighting, if I'm not mistaken.

Now I understand why your side says the things they do about withdrawing from Iraq. I wish it were that easy. Unfortunately, the truth is that the violence in Iraq would increase astronomically following a premature American withdrawal.

I have never understood why people use this as an insult.

Where exactly do you breath from if not the mouth??? Great insult there.... :rolleyes:

Rearden:

In all honesty, if we were not "over there". who would the insurgents be fighting...Each other? Seems to me that sooner or later, the Iraqis must take control of their own fate. As much as I hate to admit it, they seem to be more than willing to hold our coats while we take the flack, and at the same time bewail the loss of civilian life without doing much to eliminate it. The climate of fear and retribution toward anyone who "rats" leads to the current situation, IMHO.

As inhumane as it sounds, if the violence is maintained within the borders, the population must take responsibility and then there might be some resolution down the line or possible total annihalation of the country as a nation, reduced to constantly warring "city states".

The culture of the region is alien to our way of thinking, and therefore, we really cannot understand their motivation. Unfortunately, we have some "catching up" to do to turn things "our way".

Socioeconomically, an old adage rings true re: much of the Middle East:

"Idle hands are the devil's workshop".

It's no so much an insult as it is a description :)

I agree with a lot of what you say, Moneyguy. In hindsight, the US could have done a lot of things better in Iraq. But it is really disappointing that the Iraqi people weren't able to more effectively step up and cease the opportunity presented to them. Perhaps they have been so beaten down these past many decades, that they just didn't have it in them.

Yes, the "insurgents" (really different and opposing groups of jihadists, Shia militias, and Baathists) would be killing each other if we weren't there. You know, the "civil war" everybody has been waiting for.

Agreed on all points, tech. Housebreaking the trouble makers will be difficult to impossible, depending upon their level of dedication. We will see that dedication wane, and general support for them decrease, when we leave. Those that won't ever give it up will still have each other representing the various factions, so it won't quite down right away. The rest will be up to economic development. As they (if they) start, as a society, enjoying the benefits of a civilized existance, these extremists will have a tougher and tougher sell. It will be vastly more difficult to hide when they need to, and to replenish their ranks when they want to. This will take a great deal of time; like I said, I'm leaning towards the "three generations" end of the spectrum.

A senior Republican congressman in my district running as an "independent" has been disowned by the local Republican party. The Democrat he's running against is a retired 3-star Admiral. Times are tough for the Republicans.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1159407510.jpg

;) ;)

No it doesn't...but just keep making up what you think it should say.

Is this really what you have convinced yourself of? That the insurgency is ONLY there to fight Americans?

Interesting tactics they have, huh? I mean, how better to fight Americans than to kill your own people. How better to fight Americans than to assasinate politicians that are trying to help get your country rebuilt. How better to fight Americans than to leave bodies of your countrymen strewn across neighborhoods at night.

Yep, those guys are just fighting Americans.

No, you're mixing up a lot of ideas here. There is a civil war going on. The civil war will continue whether we are there or not. It's based on tribal and religious hatreds that are centuries old.

There is also an insurgency against occupying forces.

There are also Jihadists who are fighting the armies of occupation as well as provoking and perpetuating civil war.

As Faux News probably failed to report yesterday, two surveys done in Iraq concluded that abour 60% of all Iraqi citizens want US troops gone. As substantial percentage support shooting them now.

I believe that if we leave, the level of violence will drop immediately, and the incentive for the Iraq government to take over military and police control of their country will be raised. Call it tough love, but as long as they can let Americans die for them, what's their incentive to get their act together?