Should the Democrats Withhold Funding for the Iraq War?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jan 10 2007, 09:28 PM) [snapback]373898[/snapback]</div>

I think "Maroon" was intentional (and appropriate). From Urban Dictionary:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jan 10 2007, 09:28 PM) [snapback]373898[/snapback]</div>

No, I think she meant what she said. Didn't you ever watch Bugs Bunny?

P.S. Dang, someone beat me to it while I was typing mine!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jan 10 2007, 06:28 PM) [snapback]373898[/snapback]</div>

Nice try at the Spelling-Nazi schtick IAP. Not all can just becuase they think they can, now can they?

Possunt quia posse videntur.

Wildkow

p.s. L' shana Tova Tikatevu!

p.p.s. Oh well better late than never?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bulldog @ Jan 9 2007, 11:09 PM) [snapback]373502[/snapback]</div>

I think it will. If the funding is cut off, the military will have to reassess the remaining funds to see if they can retreat with the least amount of American lives lost. Some in the Democrat party are urging that they try to do this.

I presume you want to stay the course?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bulldog @ Jan 9 2007, 11:09 PM) [snapback]373502[/snapback]</div>

That is probably not an option for the Democrats. The Executive is the Commander in Chief, and is in charge of the details like timetables, etc. In essence, the Democrats have a hatchet to use: cut off all the funding.

Do you support that, or do you want to stay the course?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bulldog @ Jan 9 2007, 11:09 PM) [snapback]373502[/snapback]</div>

I didn't support the invasion, for a number of reasons. The main one is I thought the American people did not have the stomach for the estimated 25,000 American deaths it would take to capture Baghdad in the house to house, urban fighting (a prediction that proved to be exceedingly pessimistic). And I thought the American left would repeat the mistake of cutting off the funding for the war when it became unpopular, and we would see a bloodbath between the various factions there. "Nation building" rarely works, and takes a lot of time, and I thought it would take 10 years or more to solve the problems, as it did in Germany and Japan after WWII.

The more interesting question than "should we have done it?" is "what do we do now?" And since no proposed solution seems to be acceptable to the Democrat leadership, perhaps an immediate withdrawal by cutting off the funds would not open them up to the questions of "why did my son have to die?" from American mothers over the next two years.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bulldog @ Jan 9 2007, 11:09 PM) [snapback]373502[/snapback]</div>

There are many Iraqis who probably want nothing more than to live their lives out of the shadow of the minority that want to impose some kind of fundamentalist regime over them. Prior to Saddam's rise to power, the Iraqi people were reportedly some of the best educated people in the middle east. His brutal rape of that country, assisted by the economic sanctions of the UN after his forays into mass killings, destroyed their culture.

I agree with a lot of your analysis, by the way. I think it is an incredibly complex issue. I think it is probably wise for the Democrats not to cut off funding, although they do have to have a handy answer for the question "why didn't you do more?" if the new plan doesn't work out. And if they wait two years, and then pull troops back when President Clinton is elected, there will be two year's worth of deaths "for nothing".

There's plenty of time to surrender. Perhaps we should let the soldiers fight for a while first.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 10 2007, 08:46 PM) [snapback]373975[/snapback]</div>

I'm not for stying the course at all. To be honest I don't believe our occupasion of Iraq for 20 years will stabilize them for the long term. Once we leave they will sort themselves out in whatever way they have to. If we divided the country by ethinc majority it would have created a far better chance of them stabilizing and us controlling the situation.

Now unfortunately we will need to make a speedy withdrawel (12-18 months max) and have the current powers in Iraq step up or step down. It is ultimately up to them (current Iraqi governemnt) to control the situation or be displaced. We haev given them plenty of time to get their act together, and I keep hearing promises made by our current leadership that things are better. Thus give the Iraqi government a brief timetable to get themselves together and leave.

I have not seen anything that make me believe upping our fundign and resources in the region will lead to any change. We might supress things for a brief period and then it will up again. Remember the last round when we got promised that once they capture Falluyah they will gain control and minimize isurgents and deaths. Well the military captured the town in short order and nothign changed. I believe we are in a stale mate in Iraq. The only thing to do is to withdraw and see how the chips fall. Staying longer and adding more resources is only throwing good after bad. We are no longer the ones that can solve the problem, it is up to the people of Iraq to solve their own problems now. Whatever move we make will be critized and viewed as incorrect, so why waste the resources when we can't make a meaningful change?

10-20 years from now we will be back in that region anyhow. Save up, prepare and get it done right the next time, when the next time comes around. This time study the enemy carefully though;"Know yourself, know the enemy and victory will be secured".

It is time that we pinned the source of our problems with Islamic fundmentalists and stop playing with the pawns. The most dangerous ones are not the ones that carry arms, but the ones that gain sympathy for their radical buddies. Pin Bin Laden and crew's support network, political support, money, etc. Unfotunately we will be stepping on toes domestically to get the job done, which might raise the valid question if the cure is worse than the desease??

If we withdrew from Saudi 10 years ago would Bin Laden still had the support to attack the US? If we are out of Iraq and the Middle East, what would they use to fuel their hate for us? Or altenatively if we need the resources in that region so bad, why not take it by force? We are fighting a luke warm war against terror and getting caught in our own trap. You can't fight these fundamentalists in 2 minds. Either get out of their region and quit stirring in their politics (like we have done for decades now, our biggest enemies now are the ones we supplied 10-15 years agao); or go in with the resolve to completely break their back. You need ultimate surrender to win a war, we don't have that and can't obtain it anymore in Iraq.

Japan only stopped after we unleashed the worst terror on a nation ever. Not before.

But then again I might be completely wrong, however I can't be more wrong than Bush and company now can I?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 9 2007, 01:04 PM) [snapback]373111[/snapback]</div>

It appears that they are empty suits. They have no intention of building the 700 mile fence to keep illegals out of here. They will only do what they want to regardless of what we tell them to do. in two years we will be kicking out most all of them again. We need a 3rd party that represents the vast majority of middle class working Americans & retirees. It's obvious that what we have now is NG, period.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Jan 10 2007, 06:53 PM) [snapback]373913[/snapback]</div>

It went right over my head. I plead guilty as charged.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bulldog @ Jan 10 2007, 09:44 PM) [snapback]373998[/snapback]</div>

I think you'll see some kind of resolution within your timetable. I hope and pray its one that has a chance of preventing the deaths of millions of people in the region.

Democracies are not very good at fighting wars, unless they are quick or clearly for survival. There was a lot of grumbling during WWII about the fact that Japan attacked us, but we invaded Europe. Hindsight tells us that was probably the correct course of action, but it didn't make much sense then. The staggering losses in the bloody battles ... neighborhood families with 4 or more gold stars in their front windows ... didn't seem like it was worth saving Britain's hide.

Complex and esoteric reasons just don't cut it for us, so even if all the things the administration was saying was true, the people would not want a war longer than 2 or 3 years. Afghanistan was acceptable to most: a clearly defined enemy, and a short war. Iraq was trouble from the beginning, because it would take at least 10 years (or, as you say, perhaps would be never ending) to solve the problems there.

Still, I think the surge plan is worth a try. There's a functioning constitution in place with a duly elected government. We have a military with soldiers anxious to have the ridiculous restrictions removed so they can take care of the bad guys, and an agreement from the local government for them to do it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 11 2007, 10:35 PM) [snapback]374566[/snapback]</div>

I believe the biggest resolution will come once we leave the country. They need to have the opportunity to sort themselves out. I see and hear so many conflicting reports and information. One side claims it is a comlete fiasco and the other a great success. Honestly I do not believe a word from the Bush administration in regards to this war. They have claimed so many victories now, it is not funny any more. Yet the cost in people and money remains the same, adn I have yet to see a decline in losses. Sending more resources will only increase the losses.

If Iraq has a functioning constitution and duly elected government, they should be able to rally their own resources to control their own country, right? It is time for them to step up and deliver, we can't keep fighting their war for them.

It is very difficult to compare Iraq to any other war we were in before, because the nature of the war and the circumstances are completely different.

What specific ojectives do they have in mind with these additional resources? Another Al-Queda head another Falluyah? Bush's current reasoning is exactly why he failed in so many businesses, you need to accept when you have created a black hole. You can never fill a black hole, and the only thing you can do is cut your losses and move on. I see Iraq as a black hole at the moment. They need to stabilize themselves. Obviously if we don't like the result in the long run we need to take steps to counter that, but our continious involvement have not make it better in almost 4 years now.

Do you think if the UK or France meddled in the US civil war, we would have found resolution any sooner, or rather much later?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 12 2007, 01:35 AM) [snapback]374566[/snapback]</div>

A short war, or so we thought - until we got distracted with Iraq and gave the Taliban time to regroup.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 12 2007, 01:35 AM) [snapback]374566[/snapback]</div>

As much as I hate to throw good money after bad, the only way we will know if the surge plan will work is to try it. With the changes in command, there's a possibility we may get some traction with it. I'm just afraid that it smells too much like too little too late.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bulldog @ Jan 12 2007, 02:03 PM) [snapback]374783[/snapback]</div>

Hopefully the "sorting out" will not look like Yugoslavia.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 9 2007, 11:25 AM) [snapback]373030[/snapback]</div>

Yes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bulldog @ Jan 12 2007, 11:03 AM) [snapback]374783[/snapback]</div>

I think that's what we have with this plan. My understanding is that you have 20 brigades of Iraqis and 5 brigades of Americans to go in and not only clear the insurgents out of an area, but then to "hold" the area, start rebuilding the infrastructure, initiate the jobs program to employ the people and give them a reason to fight for their existence. The failure so far has been because the Generals have maintained that they were doing fine, and President Bush stubbornly kept believing them, even after repeated failures of the "clear" and "leave" policy.

The US has permission from the Iraqi government to change the rules of engagement, and fight without the political interference we have had up until now. It remains to be seen if that will hold, as Arab politics are very much clannish and based on who you know. Supposedly, even Al Sadr is open to capture, arrest or killing, but again, we'll have to see if the assurances from the Iraqi government really mean anything.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bulldog @ Jan 12 2007, 11:03 AM) [snapback]374783[/snapback]</div>

It is a new policy in that the staffing of the military to civilian personnel will be 1:50 in the areas they occupy in the "clear, hold and build" process. Previously, like in Fallujah, the US military battled for the territory, secured it, and then left it to the local Iraqi police. The kill ratio in these battles was very, very high. Even though we don't release the number of insurgents we kill, there are reports of the American forces losing one for every 50 insurgents or more. So it isn't the battle itself we lose, but the "peace" afterwards. The problem was that we would clear the area, then hand it over to the local police agency. Any remaining insurgents can then easily come back in and take over, because the local police live in that same neighborhood, and the threat of having your family slaughtered is too severe to make you stand up to them.

I have seen a couple of military analysts say that 1:50 ratio is a good ratio, and should have been what was done right after the fall of Baghdad. Instead, we had the small force ... great for fighting, but not so good for an occupation. If you remember the fiasco with the looting in Baghdad ... that should have never happened. It certainly didn't happen in Germany or Japan during the occupation.

I think it is worth a try, and I think it has a chance of working. There are no guarantees in this kind of thing, but with the Iraqi commitment of forces 4:1 our commitment, and the infusion of badly needed social programs to get the young men working productively again and rebuilding their own country (instead of outside sub contractors!), I think it has a chance.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Jan 12 2007, 07:14 PM) [snapback]375008[/snapback]</div>

That's also my fear. I think we'll know pretty soon if it will work. A lot depends on the Iraqis, and if they will honor their commitment that they will not exercise political authority and make the "let my cousin go" phone calls that had the Iraqi police releasing those we captured.

 

Kudos to doberman, this is actually a good question.

And a difficult political one. IMO, the Iraq debacle is a failure, the region is now more hostile to the US then before, no matter what the US does or does not do. The repubs are already spinning the story to read: we killed shussein, and did our best to help the Iraqi people, but they want to have a civil war so it is time to leave. If the democrats force Junior to pull out, the message overnight will change to: we were winning! Everything bad to come in Iraq is because the hated liberals forced us to leave prematurely.

I doubt the Democrats can win this spin war. Are they willing to do the right thing, and pay the political price ? I hope so, but that is asking an awful lot of politicians. It is more likely that a limited budget will be approved, and as more failures accrue, the voice of the american people will grow strong enough to support congressional action.

Wildkow's post is most enlightening: the classic opportunistic chicken hawk neo-con who enjoyed the misadventure that is Iraq, and cannot imagine a better outcome than blaming the democrats for it. Hundreds of thousands of innocents dead, civil liberties trampled, the CIA misused, the country mislead, torture approved and kangaroo courts a reality ? All good, and let us pray for even more !