No end in sight in Iraq!

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Just in case any of you missed this op ed piece by Bob Herbert in yesterday's New York Times....I posting it here. I thought it was excellent...and that it offered some interesting thoughts for consideration.

The news coming out of Iraq yesterday was that several more American soldiers had been killed. August's toll so far has been mind-numbing. For American troops, it's been one of the worst periods of the war. And yet there's still no sense of urgency within the Bush administration.

The president is on vacation. He's down at the ranch riding his bicycle and clearing brush. The death toll for Americans has streaked past the 1,800 mark. The Iraqi dead are counted by the tens of thousands. But if Mr. Bush has experienced any regret about the carnage he set in motion when he launched the war, he's not showing it.

Writing about Vietnam in the foreword to David Halberstam's book "The Best and the Brightest," Senator John McCain said:
"It was a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die, to persevere through god-awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat, for a cause that the country wouldn't support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us pay."

That point is no less relevant now. The administration is not willing to commit to an all-out effort to defeat the insurgents in Iraq, and is equally unwilling to reverse course and bring the troops home. Most Americans are abandoning the idea that the war can be "won." Polls are showing that they're tired of the conflict and its relentlessly mounting toll. It's hard to imagine that the population at large will be willing to sacrifice thousands of additional American lives over several more years in pursuit of goals that remain as murky as ever.

Ask a thousand different suits in Washington why we're in Iraq and you'll get a thousand different answers. Ask how we plan to win the war, and you'll get a blank stare.

Administration types and high-ranking members of the military have recently been teasing the media and the public with comments that are designed to give the impression that substantial numbers of American troops could be brought home next year.

Not only are these comments hedged with every imaginable caveat - if the transition to a permanent government goes smoothly, and if the Iraqis prove capable of providing their own security - but they are coming at a time when the U.S. is planning to increase American troop strength in Iraq in anticipation of elections scheduled for December.

I wouldn't schedule any homecoming rallies just yet, not with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warning that the current horrific violence may well escalate as the elections approach. And no one believes that the Iraqi security forces will be up to the task of securing the country any time soon.

When asked on Tuesday about a possible exit strategy for American troops, Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters it depended on many "variables," including:
"What are the Iranians doing? Are they going to be helpful or unhelpful? And if they're increasingly unhelpful, then obviously the conditions on the ground are less advantageous. Same thing with the Syrians."
Got that?

When Lyndon Johnson sent American troops into the flaming disaster of Vietnam he had no real strategy, no plan for winning the war. The idea, more or less, was that our boys, tougher and much better equipped, would beat their boys. Case closed. Fifty-eight thousand American troops succumbed to this schoolyard fantasy.

George W. Bush has no strategy, no real plan, for winning the war in Iraq. So we're stuck in a murderous quagmire without even the suggestion of an end in sight.

The administration has never been straight with the public about the war, and there's no reason to believe it will start being honest now. There is a desperate need for a serious national conversation about alternatives to the Bush approach in Iraq, which is tantamount to a permanent American military presence in that country.

The president, ensconced in a long vacation, exemplifies the vacuum of leadership on this crucial issue, which demands nothing less than the sustained attention of the wisest men and women the U.S. has to offer. They could be politicians, academics, civic or religious leaders, corporate executives - whoever. The longer they remain on the sidelines, the longer the carnage in Iraq will continue.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 3,057 • Replies: 67

No top replies

BBB
bm

0 Replies

Quote:

Not only are these comments hedged with every imaginable caveat - if the transition to a permanent government goes smoothly, and if the Iraqis prove capable of providing their own security - but they are coming at a time when the U.S. is planning to increase American troop strength in Iraq in anticipation of elections scheduled for December.

Surely George and his administration of integrity wouldn't put people in harm's way for political motives...would they?

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Quote:
Not only are these comments hedged with every imaginable caveat - if the transition to a permanent government goes smoothly, and if the Iraqis prove capable of providing their own security - but they are coming at a time when the U.S. is planning to increase American troop strength in Iraq in anticipation of elections scheduled for December.

Surely George and his administration of integrity wouldn't put people in harm's way for political motives...would they?

:wink:

0 Replies

Hate to hi-jack my own thread this early on....but...

...kicky...

...I had a ball last night.

Nobody else showed up. Joe was busy...Tony's wife needed him home...Lola and Blatham were in Texas.

But I met a young aspiring actress that you would have died to meet....and we had a wonderful time on the upper deck drinking and telling stories and such. Boy...was she a doll. (Naturally, she dug me!)

Everyone up top was in outstanding mood...and it soon bacame one big, happy party.

And the weather was spectacular.

Sorry you partied so much this week...that you had to put Thursday on the Pan on hold. It was one of the best nights there so far.

0 Replies

Those who want us to lose the war, like Herbert, keep up the relentless, drip......drip......drip. The thousands of mind numbing articles meant to create more doubt in the minds of Americans, create a new type of water torture.

Nice work Bob Herbert and Frank Apisa........you have lurid visions of another great defeat of the American military brought about by the destruction of the American people's will to continue as Walter Cronkite was able to accomplish after a few days in Vietnam during the 1968 Tet offensive.

I'm betting the American people will not let another Cronkite bring defeat.

You can post all the smug, self serving articles you like........ I wish you nothing but BAD luck in your quest. You may be posting trash such as this strictly because of your often times stated, hatred and contempt for Bush, but if you and guys like Herbert are successful, the consequences will be devastating to the people of this country, the good guys in the US military, and the greatest most mind destroying consequence will be that all who have died, died for NOTHING ........ZIPPO.

Of course, you and Herbert will never waste a moments thought about all the Iraqi people who will die at the hands of the Wahabi generated fanatics who will create new killing fields as they cut off the heads of all who ever said hello to an American. There will be a new river in Iraq......filled with blood. Do you and Herbert want to take responsibility for that?

0 Replies

It is time for the US to withdraw from Iraq and leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

This Bush's war. I don't care if he wins it or not. What I do care about is that both Iraqis and Americans stop dying for a continued lie.

If we withdraw, the Shia government that we put in power with our elections, will take over. They have already said they want us to leave. There is no danger the insurgency can topple the Shia majority government given their ally in the region, and with the US gone, much of the fuel for the insurgency will dry up.

The continued occupation has two purposes.

One is to try to put American control on the new government. But, do we have any right to do this? Don't the Iraqis get to form their own government? It is certainly not worth the cost in blood.

The second is Bushs war with the "terrorists". The fact is Al Qaeda didn't have much presence in Iraq before the invasion, and they won't have any reason to be there after the US leaves.

It is not fair for Bush to wage his war against terrorists who don't belong in Iraq. It is the Iraqis who are paying in blood for a war that until 3 years ago, they had nothing to do with.

The US needs to withdraw. There is no reason that we can't do it by next summer-- except the stubborn arrogance of the men who got us into this war in the first place.

0 Replies

The continued occupation is also a product of the PNAC agenda, which is why the neo-cons wanted to invade in the first place. If they thought the American electorate would let them get away with it, the neo-cons would establish permanent military bases in Iraq, and the GI's who would die and the Iraqis who would die be damned. Any who doubt that need only visit the PNAC web site and read their own documentation going back to 1997. Among the founding members of the PNAC are Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle.

0 Replies

rayban why don't you go fight?

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

rayban why don't you go fight?

I'd love to send a few of those bastards to meet the virgins but they keep turning me down because of my age------they seem to think 71 is too old to squeeze the trigger.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The continued occupation is also a product of the PNAC agenda, which is why the neo-cons wanted to invade in the first place. If they thought the American electorate would let them get away with it, the neo-cons would establish permanent military bases in Iraq, and the GI's who would die and the Iraqis who would die be damned. Any who doubt that need only visit the PNAC web site and read their own documentation going back to 1997. Among the founding members of the PNAC are Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle.

Bingo.

Acoording to PNAC we are not doing too well keeping up in the timetable department. We should be into Iran by now.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

Those who want us to lose the war, like Herbert, keep up the relentless, drip......drip......drip. The thousands of mind numbing articles meant to create more doubt in the minds of Americans, create a new type of water torture.

Nice work Bob Herbert and Frank Apisa........you have lurid visions of another great defeat of the American military brought about by the destruction of the American people's will to continue as Walter Cronkite was able to accomplish after a few days in Vietnam during the 1968 Tet offensive.

Why do the jerks backing this war want to portray those of us who see it for the unnecessary piece of shyt it is....and who call attention to the failure it is fast becoming (as we warned before the invasion)...

...why do they want to portray us as "wanting us to lose the war?"

Oh, yeah. Because they are jerks. I answered my own question.

Quote:

I'm betting the American people will not let another Cronkite bring defeat.

Wow...amazing analysis of why the Vietnam debacle occurred.

Did you have help from a disfunctional kindergarten class in formulating it?

Quote:

You can post all the smug, self serving articles you like........ I wish you nothing but BAD luck in your quest.

My quest...is for people to stop dying and being maimed in Iraq.

Why are you wishing me "nothing but BAD luck" in that quest?

Quote:

You may be posting trash such as this strictly because of your often times stated, hatred and contempt for Bush, but if you and guys like Herbert are successful, the consequences will be devastating to the people of this country, the good guys in the US military, and the greatest most mind destroying consequence will be that all who have died, died for NOTHING ........ZIPPO.

Oh, boy. We...those of us who suggested we not get into this quagmire in the making....are the bad guys!!!!!

How do you people stand yourselves?

Quote:

Of course, you and Herbert will never waste a moments thought about all the Iraqi people who will die at the hands of the Wahabi generated fanatics who will create new killing fields as they cut off the heads of all who ever said hello to an American. There will be a new river in Iraq......filled with blood. Do you and Herbert want to take responsibility for that?

Gimme a goddam break!

There is going to be killing going on there...no matter what.

In fact, it can easily be argued that the best chance to contain the amount of killing...would have been to let Saddam Hussein remain in power.

But there is going to be killing going on.

In any case...this ill-conceived war is making the planet much more dangerous...not less dangerous. And the options open to us now...are all, despite the fact ebrown is trying to put on one of them...miserable.

OUR SIDE WARNED OF ALL THIS!

You side told us we were nuts....that the Iraqis would greet us with flowers being strewn before our military in gratitude.

And you dare to be indignitant with us! To lecture us!

Get a life! Then grow a brain.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The continued occupation is also a product of the PNAC agenda, which is why the neo-cons wanted to invade in the first place. If they thought the American electorate would let them get away with it, the neo-cons would establish permanent military bases in Iraq, and the GI's who would die and the Iraqis who would die be damned. Any who doubt that need only visit the PNAC web site and read their own documentation going back to 1997. Among the founding members of the PNAC are Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle.

You seem to think that possessing US bases in Iraq is evil......why shouldn't we have bases there with proper status of forces agreements. It is in the long term interests of this country to acquire and maintain land bases in the Middle East, and our troops have paid for those bases in blood......you and the other critics of this war be damned.

0 Replies

Good point, Liontamer, Little Boot must feel awfully frustrated about that. He'd probably love to institute conscription so as to provide the necessary cannon fodder for the continuing crusade, but can't get the necessary backing in Congress, where those Republicans aren't lame ducks--or at least hope they're not.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa Wrote;

Yawn.....blah, blah, blah.....which translated means more and more blunderbuss absolutisms, accompanied by the ususal abusive language.

You worked very hard on that mess of incoherent ad hominems......too bad you didn't say anything worth reading.

You should stick with golf and drinking.

0 Replies

Setanta

You are the one who always escalates the rhetoric into name calling. You who can't put two sentences together without contradicting yourself such as this:

Setanta wrote:

If they thought the American electorate would let them get away with it, the neo-cons would establish permanent military bases in Iraq.

and this contradiction in your next post:

Setanta wrote:

The only proximate interest Americans have in Iraq is the oil.

When you contradict yourself so blatantly in just two posts, you either have a drinking problem or a memory problem......either way you should disqualify yourself and stop playing the fool.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

Frank Apisa Wrote;

Yawn.....blah, blah, blah.....which translated means more and more blunderbuss absolutisms, accompanied by the ususal abusive language.

You worked very hard on that mess of incoherent ad hominems......too bad you didn't say anything worth reading.

You should stick with golf and drinking.

I repeat:

In any case...this ill-conceived war is making the planet much more dangerous...not less dangerous. And the options open to us now...are all, despite the fact ebrown is trying to put on one of them...miserable.

OUR SIDE WARNED OF ALL THIS!

Your side told us we were nuts....that the Iraqis would greet us with flowers being strewn before our military in gratitude.

And you dare to be indignitant with us! To lecture us!

Get a life! Then grow a brain.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

You are the one who always escalates the rhetoric into name calling.

This is purest horseshit--i did not call anyone names.

Quote:

You who can't put two sentences together without contradicting yourself such as this:

Setanta wrote:
If they thought the American electorate would let them get away with it, the neo-cons would establish permanent military bases in Iraq.

and this contradiction in your next post:

Setanta wrote:
The only proximate interest Americans have in Iraq is the oil.

When you contradict yourself so blatantly in just two posts, you either have a drinking problem or a memory problem......either way you should disqualify yourself and stop playing the fool.

There is no contradiction in that at all. The fact that the neo-cons want bases in Iraq does not make it a proximate interest of Americans. It only makes it a selfish desire of a venal cabal of cynical politicos who don't care how many Americans and Iraqis have to die for them to get what they want. The only interest Americans could have in Iraq is the oil, and that will only ultimately benefit the Shrub's cronies if we remain there, as the Iraqis will sell it whether we are there or not, and the average American will get robbed at the pump whether the Shrub and Cheney's energy industry buddies make a big profit on it or a little one.

You claim that i am " . . . the one who always escalates the rhetoric into name calling." So far, you have suggested that i be damned, that i have a drinking or a memory problem and that i play the fool. What a blatant hypocrit. You do provide wonderful entertainment, however, with your feeble to non-existant reading comprehension skills.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:
rayban why don't you go fight?

I'd love to send a few of those bastards to meet the virgins but they keep turning me down because of my age------they seem to think 71 is too old to squeeze the trigger.

so you fought when.... Korea? WWII? Nam?

0 Replies

Rayban
It's really easy at age 71 to rant and pant about sending other people's children off to war to fight your ideological battles. Old age insulates you from fighting. Do you have any children or grandchildren of fighting age that you can offer up to fighting in this war?

BBB

0 Replies

No end in sight in Iraq!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know