What evidence is there that an Iraqi central government controls any key function of government? And why should we try to prop up an Iran-leaning Shia-dominated one? This is a country with powerful forces that want to break it apart. We have gone from trying to contain Sadaam, to WMD, to liberate Iraqis, to regional containment, to fighting AQI in Anbar with a Sunni militia comprised of former Sadaam loyalists. Next step in the logic is proxy war to contain Iran, and we might already be there. We should let this mission go. Bury the past and move on. The US has no credibility left to lose. A continuing presence or presumption that we can use force or influence to dictate a solution is foolhardy, naive and unnecessary. A simple "get out and let the chips fall" is a valid foreign policy strategy and IMO the correct one.
Option 1 - continue on same course, more blood, more money spent - country will eventually fall apart. Option 2 - change course, reduce troops, save blood & money - country will fall apart sooner. I prefer option #2 for purely selfish, looking-out-for-our-own-interests reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iraq The only difference in my approach and yours is that I would like a specific timetable and I want some special forces to remain until the government asks us to leave or falls apart.
Option number 2, if it is not a planned and organized withdrawal with some help to the current government, is not in our self interest.
Bush led us into a trap with no easy exit. We now have three wars in Iraq: the Shia/Sunni civil war, the mayhem instigated by al Qaeda, and the insurgents firing at US troops in an effort to remove the occupiers. We have regional enemies in the forms of Syrians, Iranians and Saudis who are all training in attacking US resources. The Iraqi government officials have proven themselves to be liars and thieves. This is really a no-win situation. Some else posted a great idea. Leave a residual force of 10,000 for counter terrorism training and practice, plus keep a finger on the pulse of the region. At least our guys will get some good training out of this mess. But we've lost 3,700 lives, $1,000,000,000,000 and all the international goodwill from 9/11. Happy birthday, W!
I don't understand your point here. The ACLU is an advocacy organization; of course they 'take sides.' And the Sheep ad has nothing to do with the current Iraq situation. The previous post only compared the Sheep ad to MoveOn's Petreaus ad as an example of issues advocacy that works as opposed to one that doesn't.
Chris Matthews about had a stroke talking about this tonight. He was very Olbermannesque. I read or heard something interesting. The Petraeus/Bush spin is inherently nonsensical. They are saying the surge is working where it has been implemented, so let's bring the surge force home and go back by 30K. That's retarded, since if the surge is working, it needs to be implemented in Basra, where Shiite factions are killing each other, and in Kirkuk, when the Kurds are trying to drive out everyone else, and in Diyala province. But we don't have the troops for that. The rotation policy, even with the extension to 15 month tours, dictates that we not spread the success of the surge to other troubled areas of Iraq. Which leads, inexorably, to the conclusion that only a ********ing retarded moron wants to continue this stupid, pointless war.
Yes it is political suicide but if you really want to end the war you do it any way. I am not for that, but it would end the war for us in Iraq.
Imagine if I was Richie he would probably tell you to fu-ck your mother. Then if he knew where to find you he would even go after you. He might kidnape right off the street. Bring you to a safe house and crucify you. He might even kidnape your wife and kids after that. He was real crazy guy under the right circumstances. If I was you I would not act like a wiseguy because the chances are your not. Now that I think about I would not want to be called that guy too fing nuts.
Guess what wanna-be, pretend wise-guy moron neg repped me for this? Musta hit too close to the bone......
I was not talking about me. I was talking what if Richie is Richie whatever that means Is that a picture of your wife or one of your kids? God bless you she or he is very good good looking .
And I WANT A PONY. I mean, lets be honest here, the President and his administration aren't going to leave, because that would require admitting they were wrong about the whole thing, that they don't know what they're doing, and that they don't want to make any money building permanent bases all over Iraq. The Democrats aren't going to force the issue, because this entire Iraq fiasco leaves the republican party with a big "I'M AN IDIOT" tattoo on its forehead, increasing the chances of a Democrat-run government for years to come. If you think either party gives two flying f!cks about the citizenry or the country other than a means to power and money, not necessarily in that order, then you must seriously not be from around here. The only chance we have of "changing the course" is for enough Republicans to get afraid of losing their power and money to start pushing for change, and for the democrats to start to suspect bringing everyone home will give them more money and power. That might be happening, but Bush is trying to get out in front by announcing amorphous "troop withdraws" of the 30h he sent in last year. It's all politics. It's all money and power. Screw the country. Screw the citizens.
It's not Patreus' job to figure out how we are safer here. His job is Iraq exclusivly. That question is of no merit in these hearings
I would agree that this is not part of his job description. He has a specific set of objectives that relate more to making Iraq safer. Still, he is an intelligent man as are you Matt. So let's throw the question open to any defenders of the current policy. How is it making us safer? That is the ultimate goal and responsibility of our government is it not? Therefore, a republican senator is asking a very relevant question. It is his job, together with the rest of congress, to assess whether our current policies are serving to defend the USA.
Well, the problem is that all of the "needs" that you list NEED to come from the president and they haven't. It is precisely his malfeasance that justifies impeachment hearings (notice I just said hearings as I wouldn't presuppose anything). The saddest part of this whole ugly stain on our history is that six years ago we had one of the defining and unifying events in our 230 year history. Domestically and Internationally the world was for the most part in bush's corner -- I know I was. He was in a unique position to . . . wait for it . . . LEAD! He has been an utter ********ing failure who has lied and cheated to try to fulfill his own messianic view of himself by somehow creating a democratic world in our own image when the world wanted nothing of it.
And of course the better follow-up to Petraeus would have been "IYO is this making us LESS safe than we were prior to the invasion?"
I don't have any problem with congress asking him peripheral questions. I would, rather, that they allow him to focus on our strategy looking forward solely in Iraq. I would prefer separate hearings which go to the heart of the screw ups, and what the administration did wrong. And how we could be made safer. And how our internatonal policy can be clarified.
Maybe because after 4 yrs. of questionable Happy Talk from the Admin. (and make no mistake, Petraeus is a member of this Admin. like it or not) with Dems in control, they want some clarity on issues over there and some answers to the overarching question - are we wasting blood and treasure on a pointless exercise? It's a re-run of the Vietnam years and people who lived through that era on Capitol Hill should be ashamed of themselves.
Well that is a question for the President, one that would be appropriate if answered during the national address tomorrow night. But that probably won't happen.
That's not a realistic depiction of the job of a general that high up the food chain. It damn sure is part of his job.