A Taliban Controlled Iraq

Do you think keeping our troops there, at current surge levels is making a major difference or is it just delaying (with say 6 months) the inevitable slide into the abyss? Is our loss in troops worth the slowed rate of decline?

I think we are in a MAJOR crisis in the middle east, that has been sped up (and become unmanageable) mainly by our own (US) actions. I supported the idea of a war in Iraq as I wanted Saddam gone. I believed the military and our president when they said they had enough troops to get the job done. This is/was clearly wrong. We never (and still) don't have enough troops there to make a difference.

There will be real long term consequences to this fiasco (to large for me to understand). It will hurt US a great deal, I'm not sure keeping forces at current (surge) levels does anything but slightly delay that fact. I hope for the sake of the world that I'm wrong..

This is a very difficult subject with no easy solution. In my mind a minor surge in troops, like purposed, won't make a difference. It is the same as "staying the course". Not sure I have seen a suggestion that is more viable though. I think the only solution is a diplomatic one, and that must start with US. Unfortunately I don't think the current leadership's strength is "eating humble-pie" nor changing strategy. I'm afraid we will need new leadership to get real change done and that unfortunately is more then 2 years away.

 

Typical dbermanmd... post a question, get a detailed, well thought out response so you post another question, hoping that eventually someone will post a response that you can shoot down to make yourself feel better...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 16 2007, 09:39 AM) [snapback]376235[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

Why don't you try answering your own questions, posting an opinion of your own first? I refuse to be drawn into creating a post here just so you can snipe it down before you post ANYTHING resembling an opinion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 16 2007, 10:27 AM) [snapback]376232[/snapback]</div>

If you ignore flamebait, it will go away. I've lately been trying to avoid bait, and only post when I think I have some information to add. We'll see how long that lasts. Oh, and if the majority of the population want a Taliban-style government, then isn't the democratic thing to do to let them elect it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SomervillePrius @ Jan 16 2007, 08:36 AM) [snapback]376218[/snapback]</div>

Can't you just give us the shorter version of this and say: "I supported the war in the beginning and I believed in it at first, but I'm weak and I don't have the fortitude to stick with something that is difficult and this war is difficult and I just can't stick with it. We should quit."

You and 75% of the rest of the country.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jan 16 2007, 12:34 PM) [snapback]376268[/snapback]</div>

The version is more like, I supported the war at first, then found out Bush & Co. lied and ignored the advice of generals and state department. Since Bush & Co. will never do what it actually takes to really win (i.e., institute draft, send over 400,000 troops, raise taxes to pay for it all), the troop surge is just another way of delaying the inevitable defeat while Bush's friends at Halliburton keep raking in the cash and the Iraqi oil fields are privitized.

I mean, "fortitude to stick with something?" What fortitude? Fortitude to plunge our nation into horrid debt? Fortitude to continue supporting incompetent foreign policy? What have we been asked to sacrifice? Unless you're in the army or national guard, no sacrifice has been asked. We've been told to friggin' go shopping.

So yeah, let's get out. But Bush won't do that. He'll keep us in there so whoever inherits the white house has to clean up his mess.

 

Since my 'ignore' button gets used more and more lately it becomes kinda hard to enter into a thread without possibly repeating another post, but here goes.

There should be nothing more than a fractionalized Taliban left by now, 4-5 years after they (apparently) attacked us on our own soil. The task was easier than entering Iraq...just slap the Taliban down, send them scattering to the winds and make an example of their 'captured' leader. But nooooo, better to engage the country in a protracted war/nation building all the while dividing the US Nation for years to come into red and blue...how much more fun! Let's finish up act 1 with a double impeachment http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page...ws_iv_ctrl=1061

Act 2 opens with a female president presiding over 40 more years of Democratic control and leadership...sending the republican neocons back to being the obstructionist party which is their forte anyway as proven by history.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 16 2007, 12:31 PM) [snapback]376266[/snapback]</div>

I usually don't take part in political discussion on this forum but I cannot help myself here.....

So basically what you're saying is that our intervention/presence has resulted in a disruption to the forces that have evolved in the region that had maintained the checks and balances. Since it was never our intention to "stay" there as you would suggest, we foiled this thing from the beginning.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 16 2007, 12:37 PM) [snapback]376269[/snapback]</div>

And the last couple of American elections have been shining examples of truth and justice, haven't they? <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 16 2007, 08:44 AM) [snapback]376201[/snapback]</div>

Since the countries you mentioned are Sunni-dominated, and Iran is Shia, then my answer to the last question is no.

 

Summary of my opinions from reading the responses here:

SomervillePrius, i think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with your first post - it's a completely f-ed up situation over there, and it'll take someone a lot smarter, faster, and more decisive than bush to fix it. hopefully we don't loose too many good men in the next two years.

daronspicher, believe it or not, people who initially supported the war but don't any more aren't necessarily as you described. In fact, i'd say most of them don't support it because of the decisions that have been made by Bush in regards to handling it. Opportunities have been passed up, inferior strategies have been concocted. Most people don't see any way for the US to "win" under the current president, so they just want out. In two years when we have a new president, if he/she is able to show real progress and real victories, i fully believe the American public will back the war and the new president. If they can't make real progress, then we'll most likely pull out and let the country go to hell.

dbermanmd, Nothing, and i do mean nothing, is ever as clear as you try to make it out with your "good and evil", "war and peace" thing. The fact that the Hamas sees Israel as occupiers who have no claim to the land doesn't make them evil. The fact that the Hamas are willing to fight for this belief doesn't mean that those who elected them want war and not peace. In fact, i'll bet you don't even know that on Feb 13th they publicly stated that they would stop the armed struggle if the 1967 borders were recognized. In fact, you also fail to acknowledge a cease fire that lasted for 12 months prior to the elections, and another 6 months after. Foreign politics are never as clear as they appear on the surface. Wouldn't people say that, by electing Bush twice, America was voting for war and not peace?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 16 2007, 11:37 AM) [snapback]376269[/snapback]</div>

Actually, they were announcing to the world that they were against corruption (of the then-ruling party) and in favor of more mundane quality-of-life things that Hamas ran on.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jan 16 2007, 12:34 PM) [snapback]376268[/snapback]</div>

Probably true, I don't have the stomach for "more of the same" and that's how I see the surge. I don't see a point sticking with a failing strategy. It's time to face fact and do the best of a bad situation. I don't think we will do that until we have a new leadership :-(.

We should have done it the right way from day 1. That would have meant someone else but Rumsfield in the driving seat (easy for me to say with hindsight). We should have brought in enough troops early to "hold the peace". If we had done it right from the beginning we could play from a position of strength, as it is now it seems that we have NO good options left and that the situation is our of our control. I was hoping the president would send in a lot more troops with this surge then what he suggested. This half-nice person surge seems to me be simply more of the same. I hope I'm proven wrong.

The situation we're in now has become a fiasco. I'm not sure we from our current position can do much about it, It's no longer in our control. I doubt Iran could come up with a better senario for increased power in the region had they tried. We are now depentent upon countries we don't even talk to. Not a good thing.

If we accept that the situation is outside of our control then withdrawing seems not a lot worse then the tiny surge suggested. Both paths leads to the same result, but I agree with you on one point, withdrawing is the start of something far more scary. I think it's time to face that fact and do what we can to minimize the damage (and it will be huge).

A big problem is that we did all this alone and pissed off a lot of countries while doing it. We have no international support to help us out (and it doesn't seem like we're trying to build it either). The Brit's will cut there force by 50% by the end of this year it seems and no country seem ready to offer new troops. We get more and more isolated. The European Union lends us no support. The UN even less. Do we have enough troops/money and willpower to really continue this on our own?

In my mind we have two alternatives. 1) Beg for help from the western powers (admit that it's outside of our control). This probably means bringing in the UN and will mean eating a lot of humble pie. 2) Try to negotiate with Iran/Syria and other countries to try to find something stable. So far we're not doing either (it seems). We probably need to do both.

It's a frightening time we live in. I hope we all believe a little less in simplistic black and white stories from our leaders next time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 16 2007, 08:44 AM) [snapback]376201[/snapback]</div>

Bush was fully aware of the consequences of his actions in invading Iraq.
Colin Powell advised him "you break it you buy it"
Bush clearly screwed up our countries economic future ,if we are expected to spend tens of trillions of dollars policing Iraq for decades.When no WMDs were found we should have reinstalled Saddam Hussein and said sorry we screwed up.
Any solution is worse than if we had never invaded.
The best solution is to never allow Republicans to have any decision making power again.
By the way,the Taliban are Wahhabi sect of Sunni , the same ones who dominate in Saudi Arabia.