Register your opinion on Iraq

These ought to be referred to as the TKing conditions:



And a polling category added For: under the TKing Conditions

There might be a few votes changes from both sides.
J.

BODY BAG COUNT: 1625 = .0065 percent
maxsdadeo - The 1625 body bag count was arrived at by using the Vietnam casuality figures from the U.S. Department of Defense. At .0065 percent of the number of troops in the conflict, the battle deaths come to 1625 per 250,000 soldiers. Kinda difficult to use the Persian Gulf "War" stats for a reality check.

Re someone's comment that right or wrong - I'm paraphrasing - we have to go forward with the war plans, "because we said ..." Whew!!! Never admit you're wrong, even if you are? Double "whew"!!! This must be something about losing face - which we dare not ever do. Better needless deaths? Perhaps, this is not an Interaction for me: too painful. Best wishes to all. "See you on the radio."[/color]

Exactly -- one keeps hearing that Bush personally doesn't want war, that he'd rather see this solved by Sadam's either conforming to the UN resolutions or resigning as president (Ari Fleischer suggested that that resignation could be accomplished with one bullet, a barroom challenge if there ever was one). I'm not sure that's going to happen as complete disclosure now would not be possible without Sadam losing face. That is, if he can possibly perceived to even having a face to lose. Nobody really knows what the populace does think of Sadam -- it is like Hitler in that respect, in that we could be witnessing a mass hynotism facilitated by the fact that the population has no concept of what might be better. Their religious faith is not really compatible with capitalism even if it would be compatible with some form of democracy. Democracy doesn't always preclude freedom but it also doesn't ensure it -- ours is based on the Spartan model and if one reads about history, freedom wasn't one of their assets. The Bill of Rights was suppose to ensure our freedoms but those freedoms have been chipped away at little by little (the recent bank disclosure laws are another example) and ultimately it's going to be the actions of this adminstration that demonstrates where we are headed. <sigh>

Whether or not something can be refuted is often a matter of opinion. I do not think there is any such thing as irrefutable evidence. As proof of my point, I believe there is already a mountain of irrefutable evidence that you and others seem to think is quite refutable.

All we need to do is throw France out on her cauliflower ear and this would be done.

The Congress has already given the president their authorization in this matter. Check the record.

This last is too ill-considered to warrant comment.

Lightwizard, I met in late '80s some Iraqi students in the USSR. Most of them hinted that Saddam was strongly hated by population of Iraq, but his security services were so much efficient that nothing could be done on the issue. By the way, Iraqi society is rather a secular one, and Islamists are not so much influential there as they are in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Let me add a few words to Tres's comments as to:




NATO support is not appropriate here. The NATO Charter only provides for the mutual defense of its members, and that includes Turkey. If Turkey is attacked, NATO is obligated to help defend her. Of course, they may not live up to their obligations since the Western European countries have never entirely accepted Turkey as an equal member in their alliance. There is no provision within NATO to design a plan for new governments and maintaining peace in countries outside Europe.

Let's suppose that the author of these "conditions" needed for his personal approval of war only mis-spoke, and intended instead to cite the UN, rather than NATO.

It is true we do not have the unanimous support of the Security Council, and it is unlikely that is going to be forthcoming. However, the UN has already authorized "serious consequences" that in plain language means military force to enforce the many UN resolutions ignored by Saddam over the last 12 years. Having another resolution, even more plainly worded would be nice. Having the support of the rest of the world community would be nicer, but is unlikely given the divergent political interests of the nations. Since the UN can't even come to a consensus to back it's own resolutions with the force necessary for compliance, there is little hope that the UN will preplan a new Iraq. I'm certain that the United States has several contingency plans for rebuilding Iraq, and will reveal them at the appropriate time.

The bottom line on this item is that it is not likely to be met given current circumstances.

and



There are times and circumstances where deficit spending is both necessary and defensible. Military spending falls into that category for most of us, though others begrudge spending anything at all on anything so crass as the Army. Deficit spending may also be justified to control inflation and encourage increased employment during times of economic difficulty.

Charlie: Let me get this straight, a war that happened over 35 years ago against a different regime IS pertinent, but a war fought 12 years ago against the same regime ISN'T.

Uh, ok.

Some responses for tw and Mr. asherman. Easiest first.

I shared an opinion that I would personally require a "congressional declaration of war approved by at least 2/3s of the House and Senate", to which tw responded "Congress has already given the president their authorization in this matter. Check the record."

I did check the record, tw, and I did so before I formed an opinion, not afterward. In fact, it was that very record that prompted my opinion. What Congress gave the President was not a declaration of war. Quoting from the Congressional Record on House Joint Resolution 114 which was eventually passed and now exists as Public Law 107-243:

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

tw, you may view this as a declaration of war but I do not. Call it semantics if you must, but there is a significant difference in voting to defend our country and voting to attack another one, particularly if we vote to do so with no more provocation than a perceived threat. If we are to go to war, then we should acknowledge it for what it is and insist that each of our elected representatives who support such a decision stand tall and say to their constituents "I vote for war."

Next point: NATO involvement. Again, in my opinion, support for a war against Iraq should have as a prerequisite "full NATO support, including a pre-determined, pre-approved plan for managing the country, establishing a new government and maintaining peace after the hostilities are concluded." The sum of TW's rebuttal to this statement was a too easy and too popular slap at the French, but Mr. Asherman raised valid points regarding the propriety of NATO involvement in the planning I would require. Mr. Asherman then goes on to make additional points about the effectiveness of the United Nations, to which I say, "Exactly."

As a country, we need to accept that gaining United Nations concurrence on a war against a fellow member nation simply will not occur. UN membership is too large and too diverse to gain consensus on such a topic. For this reason, I removed Security Council support from the list of things that I would require in order to support the war. But NATO support is an entirely different matter. The countries that comprise NATO are our closest and most important allies and they have been so since NATO was first signed in 1949. The criticality of the NATO alliance cannot be overstated. After centuries of naked aggression and mutual conquest, Europe of the last 50+ years has been largely free of war (save for internal strife and civil war). There can be no doubt that NATO is the primary driver in this extended peace and for this reason alone NATO merits our support and its member nations merit our respect. And respect and support in this context includes gaining concurrence before we go start a war in Europe's back yard.

The terms of our NATO membership are clear: "It commits each member country to sharing the risks and responsibilities as well as the benefits of collective security and requires of each of them the undertaking not to enter into any other international commitment which might conflict with the Treaty." If we can not convince our NATO allies that Iraq is a signficant threat to that collective security, then we are obliged to avoid this conflict until such time that we can do so.

I'll add more about NATO's role in peacekeeping and transition tomorrow.

NATO undergone some undesirable changes since the end of the Cold War: the absence of existential threat affected the solidarity level. I would never claim irrelevance of this organization, especially under conditions of global terror threat; but serious diplomatic work is pending to reverse the negative trends.

Well answered, Mr. King, but sadly I fear we shall not see any of your conditions added to this poll.

The polling appears to be split three ways at present,
10 votes against - no matter what,
10 votes for-no matter what,
and 10 votes scattered amongst persons who would agree the situation merits serious attention but who would like some other conditions met, new resolution, Nato support etc, in order that the USA is not the sole operator.

If the US is a world leader it ought to be leading more than the little band it has gathered to date.

One comment on irrefutable evidence: I think that's what the world is waiting to see, I think that's what most were expecting to hear from Colin Powell, but the truth is the US doesn't have much in the way of proof or even good intel. (Reporters rush to a site pointed out in the briefing as a chemlab to find it's never had running water..... ) What the world wants to see is U2 photos of the Iraqis burying hundreds of barrels of something in a concrete bunker, then the inspectors arrive with a backhoe and start rolling them out on the tarmac.

I hope, Navy_boy, you are ironic...

A Declaration of War is a declaration of war. This is not one.

My point, which perhaps I did not express clearly enough, was that the Congress has given the President the authorization he needs--and that is an opinion shared by the President, the Congress, and the USSC--to take military action in Iraq. I understand and share (to some extent) your concern that this does not live up to the ideal of the Congress being required to declare war before we commit our troops on foreign soil, but that horse left the barn a long time ago.

But I do understand and respect that for you this authorization does not go far enough.

Tim,

How do I rate the honorific?

In re. your third condtional statement:

The Constitutional power of Congress to declare war has largely been rendered obsolete by treaties regarding the war powers of nations, and U.S. membership in various international organizations. I believe the issue has been challenged in the courts, and found to be Constitutional. Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that surrendering some of our power to the whim of international organizations is for the best. BTW, Declarations of War are covered in Article I, Section 8(10) of the Constitution. A simple majority is sufficient for the Declaration of War, not two thirds.

Aggressive war has become a criminal act under international law. Since no nation is prohibited from military action when attacked, there is no prohibition under international law for going to war and no formal Declaration of War is required. Once war is begun it is presumed to continue even if a cease-fire or armistice continues indefinitely. Violation of a cease-fire/armistice, may be cause for a return to active military operations.

A nation, or group of nations may initiate war if authorized by the United Nations. In the present situations in Korea and Iraq, that authorization was given in 1951 (my date may be off by a year, but I'm too lazy to run down to my library to check the precise date and Resolution number), and prior to the Gulf War. The passage of UN 1441, only underscored the initial authorization.

Congressional approval in this instance gives the President the authorization needed to reopen hostilities already legitimized by prior UN resolutions. Congress might have withheld their approval, and could if they wished withdraw it at any time. The UN itself could pass a resolution specifically forbidding the use of military force against Saddam, but that would be a tacit admission that UN resolutions are not worth the paper they are printed on.

It is worthwhile to pursue getting another specific authorization, but is not necessary. The real value of pursuing a new specific resolution is to clarify that UN resolutions have real meaning and consequence. This is a test of the UN, I hope they pass.

Asherman
Are you still upholding your above views after 5 years?
If yes,
just justify.
Rama

My opinion has not changed in the slightest degree, neither have my reasons for holding that opinion changed in the least.

Thanks sir.
As a mark of respect i quote this .

The move is in response to intense pressure from service commanders who have expressed anxiety about the toll of long deployments on their soldiers and, more broadly, about the U.S. military's ability to confront unanticipated threats. Bush will announce the decision during a national speech in which aides said he will also embrace Army Gen. David H. Petraeus's plan to indefinitely suspend a drawdown of forces.

The twin decisions may set the course for U.S. policy in Iraq through the fall and perhaps for the rest of Bush's presidency. Frustrated by their inability to force Bush to shift direction since they took over Capitol Hill more than a year ago, congressional Democrats began coalescing behind a strategy of trying to force the Iraqis to shoulder more of the costs of the war and reconstruction. Key Republicans signaled support for the approach.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040902225.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

I also believe that the Iraqi forces must ultimately be responsible for operations within their own country. That isn't a change for me, I've always held the expectation that Iraq would someday be strong enough to prevail over those who would destroy it.

Expectations that the fighting in Iraq would be short was unrealistic. On the other hand those who predicted the Apocalypse were also wrong. The military defeat of Saddam's Iraq demonstrated the effectiveness of Combined Forces Doctrine, and justified Rumsfeld's faith in the military's ability to operate with relatively small numbers. Hindsight also illuminates at least two fundamental errors in the doctrine. Highly focused and coordinated Land, Sea and Air attack by a relatively small, fast moving force is effective in Phase I, but once the enemy has been militarily crushed a larger force comprised of "Police" and varous specialists (Politics, engineering, etc.) are essential. In earlier conflicts occupation forces dealt with an enemy population that fully accepted defeat and were anxious to be rebuilt. In Iraq the conflict only down a notch from high intensity to low intensity. More and different sorts of forces were needed to restore order and suppress die-hards. That brings us to the second error of totally disbanding the Iraqi Army, because they weren't PC. Without a dependable military force of their own, the new Iraqi government became totally dependent upon the U.S. for security.

Opportunists took advantage of those errors, and sectarian warlords built their own little armies to seize ever greater power within the country. Coalition Forces took the heat in attempts to maintain peace and security necessary for rebuilding the country. Foreign RIM "volunteers" began infiltrating the country from Syria, Jordan, and Iran. The RIM elements stepped up the violence against U.S. Forces as their mortal enemies, and conducted terror attacks against the budding Iraqi government as Quislings. Iran, long the mortal enemy of Iraq, saw its opportunity and began supplying munitions, training, and sanctuary for the Shi'ite militias to expand their own regional influence. The confluence of those three hostile elements, all of who benefited from maintaining a violent, chaotic Iraq was just too much for Coalition Forces and the Doctrine that served so well at the beginning of the conflict was inappropriate and inadequate.

Should the Coalition strategy have changed earlier? Yes, it probably should have. However, the approach did change and the Surge has been effective in reducing the violence and the numbers and effectiveness of the RIM volunteers. Iran continues to foment chaos and instability, and until the Iraqi warlords are subdued the potential for violence remains unacceptably high. The Iraqi government and its military are still in the crawling stage. They lack confidence and remain risk adverse when boldness might serve them better. They fear being left in the lurch by the U.S. to fight alone against some enemies who will remain forminable for years to come. Life inside Iraq is improving. The infrastructure for the nation is being rebuilt, though the process is far too slow for an impatient America. We've made a good start, and unless we make the mistake of just throwing up our hands and running away, the future will be brighter for everyone in the region.

Wars are not without pain, suffering, and trials. No military campaign is without errors, misjudgments, and combat is notoriously open to chance. This conflict has, we are told interminably, gone on longer than WWI, or WWII. It has, but this is also a very different sort of conflict against an enemy who spurns the rules of war and focuses much of its violence against the innocent in a campaign of terror. In this conflict there is no identifiable "hostile" government with the authority to tell its "soldiers" to stand down and surrender their weapons. This is a conflict where the enemy has chosen a loosely disciplined and decentralized order of battle. This is a very difficult enemy strategy to make clear progress against. Especially, when part of the enemy's calculus is to take advantage of the more open institutions of Western Civilization. To win, they believe, all they have to do is prolong the violence and blame it all on the U.S. They depend upon the short attention span and the American penchant for simple, easy solutions. If U.S. involvement in unpopular with the U.S., then eventually Americans will demand withdrawal of its troops. Defeat of the U.S. isn't to be won on the battlefield, however defined, but in the living rooms and softness of decadent America.

This is a conflict where the enemy has chosen a loosely disciplined and decentralized order of battle"

USA's faulty intellegence is barbarism pure sir.

American arrogance had paid the maximum price not in Vietnam but in Bagdad