Also agree with Lowell -- Rock on Senator Webb!!  You do us all proud.  I mean, who else is talking about the Leadership matching the Sacrifices our troops make.  He just gets it all the way around.

In fact, over at Daily Whackjob, I made that point.

First of all, the military has not failed. They have done everything asked of them. Second, the war was not lost. The invasion and it aftermath succeeded brilliantly.

The occupation was botched from the beginning by civilian political appointees who were too inexperienced and also by contractors.

The failure in Iraq was not a military failure. It's a monumental failure of policy and planning on the part of our political leaders.

And no, the Democrats do not want to see young men and women die in order to win elections. Democrats may misspeak and express themselves clumsily but they do not want to see America's defeat nor the death of its citizens.

Nor do Republicans. But this particular Administration has not served the American people well.

Comment by Anonymousisawoman | 04/26/07 11:30 pm

Nice to have my opinion validated by somebody far smarter than I am :)

The president said, in his comments, he did not believe in timelines, and he spoke out very forcefully against them. Yet in 1999, on June 5th, then-Governor Bush said, about President Clinton, "I think it's important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they would be withdrawn." Despite his past statements, President Bush refuses to apply the same standard to his own activities.

Several of the liberal blogs have the exact references to Bush's quotes -- I just can't find them right now.  But what Pelosi said was correct -- Bush did call for timelines in 1999.

http://thinkprogress...

And maybe we can talk the Maliki govt into not taking the summer off...

Why?

Because no matter how many soldiers we put in, more and more insurgents come from outside Iraq.  How do we stop these insurgents, you say?  We can't do this from inside Iraq.  Then they're already there.  No, we need to get them at the border (sound familiar).  To do this, we need to cooperation of sorrounding nations.  Gee, that sounds like diplomacy to me.

We need secure borders to halt more insurgents from entering the country.  To do this, we will need diplomacy.

Also, it appears that you change the scope of your argument half-way through.  In the beginning, you speak to the surge creating security in Iraq.  But then you challenge opponents of the surge to explain how they would create security in the region.  So, I would ask for additional clarity here as well.  Would a surge create security in the Middle East as a whole?  That sounds like a very difficult argument to make.  But I would be interested to hear how you think this might bring security to the region.

Finally, why will your proposition work and why it is the best option?

ok so the diplomacy piece has been not so hot under bush and the democrats have some ideas

MY personal opinion is that the Iraqis need help providing security in Baghadad and elsewhere in the country.  This is the real goal of the surge.  (That last sentenece is propably tough for some of you but try...)  Now we can argue if this is the most effective tactic for providing security.

So the question becomes to yall what is a better way to get security. 

That is my question (ok I'll stop here :-p) 

______________________________________________________
This part will propably get me flamed but it needs to be said

I respectfully think that pulling out is not a good idea until there is security in the region.  I thought this is what Webb thought as well. 

However, his recent vote proved otherwise 

There can be no diplomatic soulution when there are daily attacks in Baghadad and elsewhere.  At the very least you need security and diplomcay in tandem.  Some would argue you need security first.

As I said below, the idea of the surge is to eliminate threats to security in Iraq.  This is a hard task.  We are basically in a nation building process.  Step 1 is to provide security.  IRAQ IS AT LEAST ANOTHER FIVE YEAR PROCESS

Ideally, the Iraqi police and army would be providig security but they are not capable of doing that yet.  We are trying to get them to the level of providing their own security but this task is difficult which is proven in the fact that our forces the best in the world have still not totally completed this task.

Ideally all of these actions would have occured earlier in the process but they did not.  This is the fault of the Bush administration.

_________________________________________________________

Now in terms of the middle east as a whole.  Diplomacy is the mode of choice here.  It is impossible for the United States to provide security in the entire region. 

As you know diplomcay is a very complicated process.  I would try and work with Saudi Arabia and Jordan to bring Iran and Syria to a more moderate position.  IMHO direct talks with Iran and Syria wont work.

I think that answereed your questions :-)  off to work now will be back around lunch 

We created a mess and now we are responsible for cleaning it up

The goal is for this to occur as quickly as possible and with minimum effort on the US

Additionally the Iraqi government must actually start governing and quit having us hold their hand or totally rely on us for security.

I can't believe I am actually going to give you guys some advice :-p but don't rely on bashing Bush on this issue.  Or alternatively its not enough to just be anti-surge

Right now the only clear alternative I see from you guys  is pull out in anywhere form six to eighteen months.

Well I am a republican, Biden and Richardson have some interesting ideas.

And I offer some advice of my own, which I am certain will be ignored:  Toss Cheney, pick a replacement, and join in the impeachment of the President. Disinfect the Whitehouse, and start anew. Because anything short of that will allow Bush and his compliant Repubs to convince a majority of Americans that when they said they didn't like, or want to pay for government...they were serious.

Look, Americans are not stupid.  They know our ability to control an Iraqi civil war by occupying the country is a losing proposition. And no amount of flag waving, or bluff is going to change that.

If I saw something akin to real leadership like calling for a draft to put Shinseki's 500,000 soldiers in Iraq, or taxes to pay for this $2 Trillion adventure, I'd be inclined to think that the "surge" was something more than a fig leaf for "we got run out".  Because this is too little, too late. 

I actually supported a renewed offensive that would stabilize Baghdad and allow the government to get reformed and organized.  But that was sooo last year.

It's really very simple: The Bush Administration is incompetent and incapable of success, and the Iraqi government is totally corrupt.  They will both have to go before there is a chance for success.  And in light of that, I am unwilling to support the leadership's continued misuse of American blood and treasure.

With no American military occupying Iraq, there is no justification for a Jihad. The Sunni tribes in Anbar are killing al Qu'ada fighters as the Marines let them run their own affairs.  Kurdistan is already autonomous.  The rest of them are just going to have to make a decision whether they want to kill one another over religious differences, and their old positions of minority power, or whether they will create a secular, pluralistic government that provides for the common defense.  Again, their neighbors have contributed to this climate of contention and can help enforce that outcome.

George Bush, and his adminstration, don't have the answers. Never have.  Webb and Congress are telling him: Get busy building a diplomatic coalition because America no longer trusts you to prevail militarily. Then we draw back our military to a place where we can help a regional coalition create a workable and stabile resolution.

Here is the problem I see.  What are 7,000 additional troops in Baghdad going to do?  Violence in the country has increased exponentially since the 2006 bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra ¹.  There is seemingly an endless supply of suicide bombers and they have proven they can penetrate even the heavily fortified Green Zone.  The Maliki government has shown absolutely no interest in doing anything that might achieve national reconciliation.  The government has equally failed time and time again to meet any measurable goals.  On top of that the Maliki government has made concerted efforts to shield Shiite militias from a crackdown².

The nation of Iraq was created by a 1920 League of Nations mandate to the U.K.  It seems to me very much like the nation that was Yugoslavia: various ethnic and religious factions held together by a brutal dictatorship.  Yet we insist on maintaining this European drawn map.  This sectarian violence was to be expected.  It has been boiling under the surface courtesy of Saddam's brutality.  And we released these malicious jinn.  Not only that, our actions to date have served to isolate Sunnis and only served to increase sectarian violence.

Though I don't have a clear idea of what your criteria is for departure, I think that securing the whole country is not feasible.  Iraqis must settle this for themselves.  U.S. troops cannot resolve this dispute just as we could not play a constructive role in Lebanon's civil war.  This occupation is straining our volunteer military.  It has cost us over $300 billion dollars and we are poised to spend another $100 billion on it.  I would add that this is borrowed money at that!  And each dollar borrowed on balance is coming from China.  This is exacting a terrible toll on the U.S., and we must leave regardless of the state that Iraq is in when we do. 

If Iraq is still a basket case when we leave (God willing next year), it will be their own fault.  If they wish to continue killing each other instead of working together, that's their issue.  If and when they get their act together and they seek our financial assistance in rebuilding and they can assure us that the money will not be pissed away by corruption, then we should help them. 

Finally, we need to ask the Arab League for their help.  And I see no better way to encourage their involvement than for us to set a timeline for withdrawal.  As long as we continue to be the nanny for Iraq, there is no incentive for the Arab League to get involved and there is certainly no incentive for Syria and Iran to play nice.  But if we are not there and sectarian violence threatens their fragile peace, then there will be ample incentive for them to do something. 

Breaking News ???? Wow, he is certainly a Rock Star and he has earned the respect..... :-)

Watching the Democrat debate the answers wern't that encouraging.  Basically it was a contest of who will pull out quickest

On the other hand the repulicans aren't that much better with questioning the patriotisim of any who dare disagree with them

One of the reasons I like McCain is he at least has a plan.  You can disagree with the plan but at least he has one unlike most of the other frontrunners on both sides.

And so the war funding bill had some strings attached to aid to Iraq, to encourage Iraq to pass the oil revenue law there, as explained here:
  http://uspolitics.ab...

Some U.S. lawyers have been very quietly helping with the Iraqi oil law behind the scenes.
http://www.law.com/j...

Some Iraqis are against the new oil law.  As one Iraqi oil man stated,

"When the situation has stabilized and security prevails, Iraq can then build up production to 6mn b/d, an immense undertaking. To achieve this aim, exploration and drilling on a huge scale must take place, as well as the construction of major industrial complexes. This will entail developing giant and super-giant fields especially in the south. It is here that Iraq will need a great deal of financial and technical help. The sums will be huge but the rewards for both Iraq and the participating foreign companies will be great. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the Iraqi government was looking into the feasibility of PSAs and there is no reason, if they are negotiated in a fair and honest way to both sides, why they cannot be used for these important new developments. However, now is not the time for them; Iraq is an occupied country in desperate straits negotiating from a position of weakness. It has been acknowledged that the new draft oil law has had input from various non-Iraqi sources."

http://www.petroleum...

It is absolutely true that they are in a terrible negotiating position now.  It's logical for the Iraqis not to want to make massive, long-term deals with foreign oil companies right now.  For that reason, they are not going to adopt any new oil laws unless they feel that they have no other choice, and even then, they will do the minimum possible. 
  http://www.alertnet....

To even get that minimum action, the Iraqis have to believe that the U.S. might withdraw in the relatively near future and that they need to start generating more oil revenues to rebuild and run their country.

Thus, Gen Petraeus has commented more than once that the debate over a timetable for withdrawal has been helpful.

This seems unconscionable.  Trying to fight a war for multiple years is not the purpose of an all volunteer Army. 

And we just heard from the Summit on Iraq that it is going to take 5 more years to rebuild it.  That would make our combat troops available for 10 years if the rebuild process estimate is accurate.

If the President and the Republican Party as a whole believe this war is worth fighting and love our troops as they say they do then they should all quickly approve a "draft system" with the War appropriation money.

And my guess is the President will veto an appropriation bill that contains a "draft" included because that would be unpopular for the Republican Party in elections next year. 

But what about the soldiers over in Iraq that the President and Republican Congress love so much, that have been eating sand and spending: days, months, and now years serving our country not knowing who the enemy is many times and facing each day with some level or fear.

If this war is worth fighting and I have no idea which party may be right, I only know that as a former Army soldier it is time to either take the troops out or institute a draft system because too few men and women are fighting for the United States. 

My vote is we either change the direction of the war or we change the fighting men and women that have contributed more than their share to this war. 

Best wishes, Richard