The Petraeus/Crocker testimony on Capitol Hill this week was quite grim. In comparison to their last testimonials in September 2007, they reported that almost nothing has changed. Is it their fault? Of course not. I have no desire to "armchair quarterback" the people who are tasked with making Iraq an enjoyable place to live. However, we can't ignore the fact that Iraq is showing no signs of improvement under the continued occupation of the U.S. military.
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker didn't paint a happy picture of security and stability operations in Iraq. Neither of those gentlemen were touting that democracy is flourishing over the Iraqi desert nor did they say Iraq is doomed to become America's worst nightmare. For me, it was a lot of "yes but no."
My analysis of the hearings follows:
* Progress is slowly taking place, but it is reversible.
* Important measures have been taken toward political reconciliation, but not yet important enough to be implemented.
* The Iraqi government is strong, but needs our help to fight militias, tribes, insurgents, and extremist.
* Nouri al-Maliki's crackdown on Sadr's Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad was viewed as a great achievement while simultaneously establishing that the feud seriously jeopardizes a democratic Iraqi election process.
* Al-Qaeda is in retreat, but still poses a serious threat.
* Syria provides strong support to Iraq's Sunni insurgency, but we need to engage them in a diplomatic effort while we threaten them at the same time.
* Iran arms, trains, and supports the Iraqi Shiite militias and death squads, but Maliki is an ally of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
* The presence of the U.S. military is required for an indefinite period of time to assist in Iraq's uncertain success, but eventually we will start drawing down our forces.
Anyone who watched the hearings could clearly see that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker seemed very hesitant in giving their progress reports. They provided substantial evidence of a total stalemate in regard to political and military progress combined with the resurgence of large-scale domestic violence. For "naysayers" like me, it was a rather sobering assessment of just how fragile the situation is in Iraq.
On the other hand, we have the "true believers." If you are easily influenced by the rhetoric of John McCain, Joe Leiberman, and Lindsay Graham you would think Baghdad is now an exotic tourist attraction with water parks to take the wife and kids for a summer vacation. So go ahead and make your travel arrangements.
From the information we received from the Petraeus/Crocker testimonies one can only assume that the debate on Capitol Hill regarding whether we "cut and run" or "stay the course" is gridlocked. Both sides will exploit and exaggerate the given information for their own political agendas.
The Republican Party, for the most part, has made it clear that they will carry out the orders of George W. Bush come "hell or high water." Their strategy of unification will make it possible for them to prevail on their war plan despite it's overwhelmingly unpopularity with the American people. If they detect any minuscule stipulation that is resistant to the current strategy into the war-funding legislation they will filibuster it before it makes it's way over to Bush for a veto.
The Democratic party is much more complex and has chosen to play it safe. They have decided that control of Congress isn't enough to change course in Iraq. Instead, they will need the White House too. Unfortunately, this doesn't even amount to an insufficient strategy. It prematurely assumes that they have the '08 elections all wrapped up -- but it is quite the contrary.
How can the Democrats use the war issue against McCain and Republicans in Congress if their voting records are identical? It doesn't seem plausible to me. It actually puts them in a worse position because if they vote for "blank check" funding they'll also be on record acknowledging it was the wrong thing to do prior to voting for it. They vote the same way as the Republicans, but they complain about it. Not exactly trying to win over your disillusioned base now are you ? This timid approach/lack of remedy will undoubtedly cost Democrats the votes of not only the peace-movement, but also life long party loyalists.
Over 70% of the American people are against the continued war/occupation of Iraq. So why won't our elected leaders do something about it? Because in their minds they believe that the majority of us will not formulate our opposition to the war into comprehensive political will. This is the same mentality that allows Vice President Cheney to utter the word "so" when asked about opinion polls that indicate the American people's opposition to our presence in Iraq.
We must prove them all wrong.
I would like to quote Ambassador Ryan Crocker in his opening statement to the House Armed Services Committee's hearing on Iraq:
"Americans have invested a great deal in Iraq in blood, as well as treasure, and they have the right to ask whether this is worth it, whether it is now time to walk away and let the Iraqis fend for themselves."
For me, that says it all. I urge all concerned Americans to ask themselves these very questions presented by Ambassador Crocker. Once you have found an answer, please convey it your member of Congress.
We are spending humdreds of billions of dollars on this are and the Dems in Congress keep authorizing it. It's one excuse after another. And more of our troops are dying, 18 since this past Sunday alone. And the horror continues, no one in Washington cares and we as a society are their accomplices.
However given the current political climate here is what it boils down to
The situation is hard right now and frustrating. However I believe if we leave the situation will become even worse and evnetually we will have to come in again.
I view it like the Somalia situation. America left Somalia because it got messy. Now Somalia is basically running in anarchy and is a haven for Islamic extremists and terrorists.
The military has done an excellent job. I am critical of the state department piece. Do they even have a plan?
Also quit using polling data from last fall. The country is basically split again with about 1/2 on either "side" of this debate.
We have serious problems in the U.S. Our economy is infrastructure is crumbling, people are losing their homes; people are being drown with debt; and now employers are firing people.
A have heard many economists talking about how this recession could turn into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
If we want to guarantee the survival of the U.S., we must pull out of Iraq and focus on the economy. Otherwise we will end up with no sound economy and having to pull out of Iraq in any case, due to bankruptcy.
Al Qeada has already won the war on terror.
Let me explain.
Wars boil down to a financial contest if they can't be won quickly. Whoever can spend more money for the longer time wins.
Ideally, a side wants to make the other side to spend more money than what they are spending. So, for every dollar that we are spending, we want them to spend $1.50. Make the run out of their money and resources before we do.
This kind of spreadsheet warfare explains why the USSR is no longer with us. They ran out of money before the U.S. did.
It also explains why wars of occupation, such as Vietnam and Afghanistan in the 1980s tend to fail. The occupier doesn't have any enemy to outspend. Instead, the only party bearing the financial burden is the occupier.
Now let's look at the war on terror. Al Qeada must have spent a few thousand on the 911 attack.
How much has the U.S. spent on Afghanistan and Iraq together? Billions. And the total war cost, if we pulled out tomorrow out of Iraq, will cost over a trillion dollar.
The wars has weakened the U.S. economy to a state that we haven't seen in probably since the Great Depression.
The wars have weaken the U.S. military, making it incapable to address other crises because they all must be concentrated in the occupation of Iraq.
The wars, but mainly Iraq, have made it impossible to address the economic distress of Americans. We don't have money, the Republican president says, because we must spend everything we have in Iraq.
Was it that Osama Bin Laden somehow knew that the Republican White house was going to overreact and invade Iraq? Or was it just dumb luck?
In any case, the Republican White House has consistently been playing into the hands of Al Qeada by recklessly pursuing a war that threatens the military and economic strength of the U.S.
Let's match Al Qeada's ROI vs the U.S.'s.
After billions of dollars spent by the U.S., Al Qeada still operates, Iraq has an ongoing civil war punctuated with tense periods of calm, and China has emerged as a world power by financing the U.S. economy.
After thousands dollars spent by Al Qeada, the U.S. military has been weaken and the U.S. economy has been weakened.
Objectively, who is winning this war?
And what can we do about it?
Yes, Osama has publicly stated that 9/11 was all about getting the U.S. to massively overreact, which, per his plan, would in turn radicalize the Muslim masses and drive them into al Qaeda's camp, with the final result, his ultimate goal, being the bankrupting and fall of the American Empire.
You have to hand it to him -- he's a veritable Dr. Evil.
And Osama's cause has no doubt been helped beyond his wildest expectations by his great good fortune in hitting the U.S. when a clueless loser was at the helm of the ship of state.
-- John Bruhns
Say we pull out from Iraq (in an organized fashion etc...)
How is Afghanistan going to be different than Iraq
In Afghanistan you basically have a civil war as well.
You are fighting an enemy on their terrain
You have an enemy that won't give up until they are dead
Its another case of nation building
Will a surge in Afghanistan help
I think it will have the same results as Iraq
less violence but basically just because the enemy will wait it out or move (maybe even to Iraq) and you still have the problem of nation building again
so we are back to square one and its my belief that Iraq will basically look like Somalia at this point
Man this is so tough