Winning in Iraq

I think there is so much that could have been accomplished under better leadership. Certainly, after stabilizing a region, we should keep enough troops there to keep that region stable. Instead, troops were shifted from one region to another, with the place left behind going back to chaos. I think a lot of the mistakes were grounded by the insanity of refusing to admit mistakes and playing like everything was great all the time.

I have high hopes that with new leadership there will be an opportunity for real progress, even if it is slow. I do not think we should pull out. I think we should move the troops to the fringe areas and help the Iraqis stabilize them. Only then should we move into the more dangerous regions.

I also think we need to reach out to other nations for help.

If this is not viable for whatever reason (lack of funding, lack of troops, or whatever), we should bring our troops home.

 

The only winners in Iraq are Halliburton, CACI and Titan. $100 per laundry round. $6 per can of coke filled in the middle east. That is how you legally steal money.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Nov 9 2006, 11:10 PM) [snapback]346726[/snapback]</div>

Ack! Jeez, no! I just mean having minimized violence. There are some regions that are relatively stable, some that are in chaos, and some in between. So I think we should concentrate on the stable and in-between areas first, and ensure they stay that way before leaving the area, or come back to them if they start to become violent again.

Or maybe I'm just being too simplistic.

 

"Winning" in Iraq means gaining control of the oil, of course.

The shrub's Hollywood-cowboy-movie idea of "stabilizing" a country is by threatening to kill everyone who opposes our illegal occupation of their country, and backing up the threat by actually killing, more or less at random, anybody who sticks their head up at the wrong moment. The strategy fails, because the more people you kill, the more the survivors hate us, because while the dead may be mere statistics and "colateral damage" to us, to the survivors the dead are their wives and husbands and children and mothers and fathers. And we've killed so many people over there, most of them unarmed civilians, that there's no way they're going to accept our occupation of their country or our taking their oil.

But anybody who owned Halliburton stock before the war is smiling all the way to the bank now. Which is to say that nothing's changed in the last 500 years.

 

Haven't you guys read Bush's plan for Iraq?

Phase One: Attack Iraq
Phase Two: ?
Phase Three: Profit!

Unfortunately, he implemented phase one before figuring out what to do in phase two.

 

I think the region is so steeped in conflict over the centuries that perhaps the only governance that can truly stabilize it is one that's tyrannical and absolute. I'm not happy to conclude that either.

If the world got together and put in one soldier for each citizen, I think there would continue to be unrest.

Nobody can force a democracy on Iraq.

Powell was right when he said to Bush "If you break it, you bought it." Well, Bush seriously broke it and it cannot be fixed, at least not by us, and there will be much more death and suffering no matter what direction the US takes. Regardless of how it stabilizes, it may be no better than it was before the invasion.

A little foresight could have gone a long way. Will we learn anything from this?

 

Did we learn anything from Vietnam?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Nov 12 2006, 07:06 AM) [snapback]347800[/snapback]</div>

Nope.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 10 2006, 12:50 AM) [snapback]346774[/snapback]</div>

You'd think he'd have learned from the plight of the Underpants Gnomes!
Step one: Underpants
Step two: ???????
Step three: Profit!

...watch that second step, it'll get 'cha!
[laughing]

 

Phase three is the only one that matters.

 

Underpants Gnomes????? :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 15 2006, 11:45 AM) [snapback]349523[/snapback]</div>

It's a South Park reference.