News   May 08, 2024
 938     1 
News   May 08, 2024
 1K     1 
News   May 08, 2024
 2.6K     3 

What to do in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The way I see it, either the US gets out now, saying it got rid of a terrible dictator and set up Iraq for democracy, leaving it to the Iraqis to work out their differences; or it can get out later, after much more bloodshed and carnage, leaving it to the Iraqis to work out their differences.
If only it was as simple as that. Practically, the Americans won't pull out all of their troops - they'll keep reducing their number until they get to around 15,000 like they did in South Korea and other parts of the world.
 
If only it was as simple as that. Practically, the Americans won't pull out all of their troops - they'll keep reducing their number until they get to around 15,000 like they did in South Korea and other parts of the world.

Unless there is a massive change administration change in the United States (and this isnt just a changing of the guard from Republican to Democrats, but a pretty fundamental shift in the overall ideology of American foreign policy) I am more inclined to believe that the US is staying in Iraq for decades to come (and if the Neoconservatives have their way, forever).

While what would be best for the people of Iraq is if they started pulling out now and were gone within a year, but since this war has never about the good of the Iraqi people, I cant see a sudden ideological shift in the approach to this war.
 
Approaching 2000...

Amid the bombs and bullets, the US death toll is nearing 2,000
From James Hider in Baghdad

IT USED to be easy to meet American soldiers in Baghdad. You would drive up to them as they did a patrol in the street or manned a checkpoint or even shopped for cheap televisions, and strike up a conversation.

Try doing that now and you can order your body bag in advance. Every humvee has a sign fixed to its back warning that any attempts to approach closer than 100 yards will mean the gunner on the roof will open fire. Civilian cars scatter before US patrols like jittery deer before a wolf.

The reason for such nervousness is the American military death toll, which after the death of a US Marine in Ramadi yesterday, stood three short of 2,000. In the chaotic days that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, and with President Bush declaring mission accomplished, the death of any US soldier was a news story. Journalists would grab their flak jackets, jump in their cars and speed off to Fallujah or Boura in southern Baghdad; mobs of angry Iraqis would be milling around a smouldering humvee or pool of blood, shouting their anger at the lack of electricity, or water or security.

In the early days the attacks had an almost casual air: a teenager would drop a hand grenade off a bridge into a passing humvee; a lone attacker would emerge with a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and fire at soldiers buying air-conditioning units or cut-price DVD players in the shops of central Baghdad. The strikes were brushed off by the military as the work of “dead enders†from the ousted regime.

Soon, the incongruous sight of American soldiers shopping or eating lunch in restaurants in body armour was a thing of the past. The bridges were lined with high chain-link fences to stop the grenade attacks. Instead, the Americans were targeted at checkpoints to their bases, between the newly built canyons of concrete blast walls.

Kamikazes in cars filled with bombs would blow themselves up as US troops searched waiting vehicles. In response the army put Iraqi security forces at their gates: an American soldier admitted last week that this was still the only effective way of protecting US troops from car bombs.

So the car bombers started ramming their vehicles into convoys on the roads. The Americans replied by shooting at any car that came near them.

By November 2003 the guerrillas had organised themselves into cells capable of shooting down helicopters. Bloody crashes followed: a helicopter with 16 soldiers going home on leave plunged into a palm-fringed field in Fallujah. The choppers started flying at night, swerving and ducking unseen missiles.

Patrols in cities were reduced and more Iraqi troops put in the streets. But the Iraqi soldiers shared bases with their US counterparts, and guerrillas infiltrated the new army. A year ago the unthinkable happened: a suicide bomber dressed in military fatigues blew himself up in a US Army mess hall in Mosul, killing more than 20.

The Iraqi forces were failing to control the insurgency and whole towns, such as Fallujah, Yusufiyah and Maadain slipped out of control. The Americans were forced to fight their way back in, losing scores of soldiers in vicious street fighting. If they stayed out of the towns they were attacked; if they went in they were attacked. They had to start training most Iraqi units from scratch.

The American vehicles gradually became more heavily armoured. It started in Fallajuh where underequipped troops would sandbag the backs of their trucks and bolt on scrap metal plates. As heavier armour finally arrived, the insurgents started using more lethal “shaped†charges, which coalition officers said were being supplied by Iranian agents. Suddenly the rocket-resistant armoured personnel carriers became rolling sarcophagi.

It has been a rapid and brutal evolution of attack and counter-measure, yet at least one American soldier is being killed almost every day in Iraq.

The toll of 2,000 remains far below the much-quoted benchmark of warfare, Vietnam, where more than 55,000 American troops died. But with polls indicating that most Iraqis support attacks on coalition troops — American and British — and with support for the war flagging back in America, the comparison with that ghost is only likely to grow.
 
Some quotes from Republicans:

"You can support the troops but not the president." --Rep Tom Delay
(R- TX )

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're
going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." --Joe Scarborough
(R- FL )

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may
come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their
life?" --Sean Hannity, Fox News

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might
on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit
strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will
cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long
they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound
foreign policy." --Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the
administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign
policy." --Rep Tom Delay (R- TX )

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they
have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . . I
didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." --Senator
Trent Lott (R- MS )

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it
is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just
learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with
very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later,
these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of
engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition
of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is
no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our
over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital
national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war
when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan
today." --Rep Tom Delay (R- TX )

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to
explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Governor George W. Bush
(R- TX )

You're probably scratching your head by this point. The above quotes are from the Kosovo and Somalia war periods during the Clinton administration.
 
Hypocracy seems to be a recurring theme for this regime. At least one of those people is now indicted, one is watching his number 2 and 3 fall as we speak, and the rest will likely fade off into oblivion as hacks and yes men/women for an administration that has done more damage than I think most people have yet to realize.
 
Give it time. The next Democrat Prez will just as quickly send US forces overseas to fight somewhere. If Gore had beaten Bush in 2000 IMO the USA would have still gone to war in Afghanistan to try to get OBL. Perhaps Iraq would have been avoided, but who knows?

Let's not forget that Democrats have frequently sent Americans into invasions and protracted occupations. Just to name a few...
- America's invasion and occupation of western Europe (FDR); US troops are still there
- Invasion and occupation of Japan (HST): US troops still there
- Korea (HST); US troops are still there
- Vietnam (JFK & LBJ), US troops forced out, MIAs still there?
- Haiti invasion (Clinton)
- Mogadishu (Clinton), US troops routed and forced out
- Rwanda (Clinton), oh, sorry, he did nothing to help the est. 1 million murdered

Now spare me the reply list of bad things, invasions, occupations, political interference or wars the Republican Presidents have gotten the USA into. The GOP list would be as long as the DEM list, and that's my point. Let's stop believing that the Democrat party is the party of reason and isolatist foreign policy. An American prez, given sufficient time and opportunity, be it GOP or DEM will always seek a little war and peace to make his legacy.
 
Let's stop believing that the Democrat party is the party of reason and isolatist foreign policy.

Are you trying to compare the legitimacy and "reason" of the Iraq war to that of the Second World War? Not that I necessarily consider isolationism a virtue, but the Democratic administration in 1941 did pursue an isolationist policy until the United States was directly attacked - unprovoked - on its own soil. That's hardly the same situation as Iraq.

It's also quite preposterous to suggest that the troops in Europe and Japan are somehow part of a long occupation. They're obviously there largely to provide the U.S. with well-located bases, and secondarily to help defend those regions from external threats. The Germans and Japanese are not killing dozens of American troops every month.

I find this feature from the New York Times extremely powerful. The only thing it lacks is the ability to view all the faces at once.

Roster of the Dead
 
Interesting how you jump to the morally defendable WW2 example and skip right past the Democrats Prez' invasion of Vietnam.
It's also quite preposterous to suggest that the troops in Europe and Japan are somehow part of a long occupation.
Do you believe that, during 1945-1950 and throughout the height of the cold war, had the citizens/governments of Germany and Japan had demanded the withdrawl of American troops that the US would have left? I think not. That's an occupation. Today, with a little pressure, such as from the people of Okinawa after American soldiers began attacking civilians, the US can be forced out, but in the 1950s through to the 1970s the US was occupying those territories pure and simple as a method of dealing with Soviet aggression beyond US borders.
 
Not that I necessarily consider isolationism a virtue, but the Democratic administration in 1941 did pursue an isolationist policy until the United States was directly attacked - unprovoked - on its own soil.

?! The Lend-Lease Act was signed nearly a year before the Japanese attacked the US. The USS Reuben James was sunk by a German U-boat on Oct 31, escorting Lend-Lease supplies to the UK.

FDR did his absolute best to drag the US into WWII, while the Republicans largely tried to stay out of it.

Kevin
 
So FDR stayed out of the war until directly attacked despite strong personal convictions otherwise...

Interesting how you jump to the morally defendable WW2 example and skip right past the Democrats Prez' invasion of Vietnam.

He didn't invade Vietnam. Whether or not you consider that war morally defensible, the American troops were sent to defend a recognized government. In Iraq they conquered a state, overthrew its regognized government, and installed one of their own.

Do you believe that, during 1945-1950 and throughout the height of the cold war, had the citizens/governments of Germany and Japan had demanded the withdrawl of American troops that the US would have left? I think not.

Most likely, yes. They left Subic Bay after the Fillipinos pushed them out at the height of the Cold War. The Germans and Japanese wanted them to stay to protect them from external enemies. Obviously they wanted them to stay since they still aren't pushing them to leave despite a dearth of regional threats, particularly in Germany.
 
Whether or not you consider that war morally defensible, the American troops were sent to defend a recognized government
If you're referring to the US-backed and installed Diem government, that's a stretch.
The Germans and Japanese wanted them to stay to protect them from external enemies
And internal. Let's not forget NATO was established to prevent the re-emergence of a militarist Germany, as much as it was to act as a counter-balance to the Soviet-dominated east. The US played a similar role in Japan, vis-a-vis its pacifist constitution.
 
If you're referring to the US-backed and installed Diem government, that's a stretch.

I may not agree with it, and the Americans may have propped it up against significant popular opposition, but it was still an internationally recognized government that they were defending.

That's true about internal enemies before about 1950. After that, there wasn't really much danger of Germany or Japan falling into either the communist bloc, or independent militarism.
 

Back
Top