0
   

Republican Commission: Iraq War is Over -- We lost ?

 
 
Zippo
 
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 12:42 pm
Republican Commission: Iraq War is Over

Quote:
By ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 12, 2006

Baker's Panel Rules Out Iraq Victory

"A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America."

http://www.nysun.com/article/41371?page_no=1


American's have lost Iraq. Who would have guessed that ?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 587 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 12:56 pm
The report says no such thing.

The reporter, showing natural bias towards the current administration, offered an opinion.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 01:00 pm
...and everybody knows victory in Iraq is just around the corner! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 01:02 pm
woiyo wrote:
The report says no such thing.

The reporter, showing natural bias towards the current administration, offered an opinion.


Commission convened by Virginia Republican Frank Wolf and led by Bush 41's main man, James Baker. Unfortunately, the commission's official findings won't be released until after election day.

You know, why have all the information if the information is liable to guide your vote?

Quote:
The Sun's Eli Lake writes (emphasis mine):
"The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, 'Stability First,' argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped."


The second part, "Redeploy and Contain," is essentially a withdrawal plan.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 02:54 pm
Who said that every war worth winning is easy to win? Some wars worth winning may be difficult, and some may be nearly impossible, but that has little to do with whether the war should be entered into. You'd have been a riot in World War 2, beginning after about the sixth month of the war to scream that we had lost.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 04:22 pm
If only this conflict resembled WWII in any way, shape, or form....
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 12:43 pm
Brandon9000

Quote:
Who said that every war worth winning is easy to win?


Oh, just some American government official.

Role In Going To War: Prior to the war, Rumsfeld repeatedly suggested the war in Iraq would be short and swift. He said, 'The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that.' He also said, 'It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.' [Rumsfeld, 11/14/02; USA Today, 4/1/03]

"Our military capabilities are so devastating and precise that we can destroy an Iraqi tank under a bridge without damaging the bridge"

Quote:
ALISON CALDWELL: The talk is that beyond Iraq, ultimately Donald Rumsfeld wants to run Foreign Policy. A senior Bush advisor told The Washington Post, the Rumsfeld doctrine would see the United States having the ability to deploy force quickly with dramatic positive effect in multiple places at multiple times. It's a theory that would be boosted immeasurably by a quick, clean war with Iraq.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s821963.htm
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 01:56 pm
We have got to put all of our resourses into Iraq and continue to fight until the Nazi forces controlled by Hitler have been defeated once and for all.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 02:14 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
We have got to put all of our resourses into Iraq and continue to fight until the Nazi forces controlled by Hitler have been defeated once and for all.


Hitler?! I thought we were fighting the Empire of Japan!
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 02:22 pm
Yeah. Sum Guy Lee.

Now THAT's a war we can win. Let's go there instead.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 03:36 pm
If it's over and we lost. It must be Clinton's fault.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 06:38 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Who said that every war worth winning is easy to win? Some wars worth winning may be difficult, and some may be nearly impossible, but that has little to do with whether the war should be entered into. You'd have been a riot in World War 2, beginning after about the sixth month of the war to scream that we had lost.


The dumbest thing that Brandon has ever posted here perhaps.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 10:07 pm
Zippo wrote:
Brandon9000

Quote:
Who said that every war worth winning is easy to win?


Oh, just some American government official.

Role In Going To War: Prior to the war, Rumsfeld repeatedly suggested the war in Iraq would be short and swift. He said, 'The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that.' He also said, 'It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.' [Rumsfeld, 11/14/02; USA Today, 4/1/03]

"Our military capabilities are so devastating and precise that we can destroy an Iraqi tank under a bridge without damaging the bridge"

Quote:
ALISON CALDWELL: The talk is that beyond Iraq, ultimately Donald Rumsfeld wants to run Foreign Policy. A senior Bush advisor told The Washington Post, the Rumsfeld doctrine would see the United States having the ability to deploy force quickly with dramatic positive effect in multiple places at multiple times. It's a theory that would be boosted immeasurably by a quick, clean war with Iraq.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s821963.htm

You having a problem thinking, or reading, or something? Rumsfeld expressed the opinion that the war in Iraq would be brief. He did not express the opinion that every war worth fighting is easy and quick, and had he expressed that opinion, he would have been wrong.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 10:09 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Who said that every war worth winning is easy to win? Some wars worth winning may be difficult, and some may be nearly impossible, but that has little to do with whether the war should be entered into. You'd have been a riot in World War 2, beginning after about the sixth month of the war to scream that we had lost.


The dumbest thing that Brandon has ever posted here perhaps.

Your opinion would carry more weight had you explained why it was "dumb," but, then, your posts rarely rise above the level of name calling.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 07:35 am
Most of the pre-war claims by various administration officials rarely made clear cut statements, instead they carried the "the meaning of is, is" defense to a fine art.

It's true that major military operations were over in a matter of weeks rather than years if you take the view that simply taking over Baghdad and running Saddam to ground and eventually out of hiding is defined as major military operations. We have had ten times more coalition military and Iraqi death and destruction in the reconstruction phase of the so called operation than we had in the "major combat operation" phase. Moreover, they had no plan in place to win the peace of Iraq because they expected to be "greeted as liberators." What I mean to say is that they may have had a plan but they didn't have back up plans if we were not greeted as liberators. And they should have because they were warned about the insurgency problem before the war.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-10-24-insurgence-intel_x.htm

Also, this war even if we won was not worth going into at the time we did it because we had no reason to go in when we did and the administration knew it. They ignored intelligence which shed doubt on the reasons for invading and sexed up the intelligence which agreed with their reasoning. There were plenty of other more dangerous, horrible regimes in the world other than Iraq which was pretty much contained and they knew it at the time, they just ignored it.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html

Ex-CIA officer accuses White House of 'misusing' data on Iraq

Comparing Iraq with WW2 don't make it any more legitimate no matter how much Iraq war supporters keep trying it.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 10:56 am
Look what we have here. I agree with 'cut and run' then declare victory, or vice versa.

B.T.W i liked this quote : "Stay the Course, Redefine the Mission" Laughing

Quote:
Bush Preparing To 'Cut and Run' From Iraq

10/17/06
Washington, D.C.

A panel of White House advisers, which includes a former US secretary of state, is ready to recommend large troop withdrawals from Iraq, it emerged today.

In what would be a major shift in policy, the experts are said to be ready to suggest the "Redeploy and Contain" option which would mean withdrawing American troops to bases outside Iraq where they could be used against terrorist organizations anywhere in the region.

The report is being prepared by a 10-member commission called the Iraq Study Group, headed by former US secretary of state James Baker, and is backed by President Bush.

According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, the alternatives to a large-scale withdrawal include "Stability First", which would mean continuing to try to stabilise Baghdad, boosting efforts to entice militants into politics and bringing Iran and Syria into plans to end the fighting.

Another option is "Stay the Course, Redefine the Mission", but the panel appears to be less interested in that choice.

Violence in Iraq and rising American casualties are emerging as key issues for November's US mid-term elections.

"There's got to be another way," is how one member of the Iraq panel summed up their views on the situation in Iraq and the failure of current US policy, according to the LA Times.

Mr Baker, who was Secretary of State under President George HW Bush, the current president's father, has so far stressed that the panel has not come to a definitive conclusion.

But he has indicated the direction of the panel's thinking in recent television interviews.

"Our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate of 'stay the course' and 'cut and run'", he told ABC News recently.

He has also said there would probably be some things in the report that the administration might not like.

The White House has not commented on the newspaper report.
By Richard Alleyne

http://www.alaskareport.com/z44483.htm
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 07:38 am
U.S. may have weeks, not months, to avert civil war, adviser warns

Quote:
With the violence in Iraq flaring dangerously, a national consensus is growing, even among senior Republicans, that the United States must consider a major change in strategy in the coming months.

But in a sign of the growing sense of urgency, a member of a high-powered government advisory body that is developing options to prevent Iraq's chaotic collapse warns that the United States could have just weeks, not months, to avoid an all-out civil war.

"There's a sense among many people now that things in Iraq are slipping fast and there isn't a lot of time to reverse them," said Larry Diamond, one of a panel of experts advising the Iraq Study Group, which is preparing a range of policy alternatives for President Bush.

"The civil war is already well along. We have no way of knowing if it's too late until we try a radically different course," said Diamond, an expert on building democracies who is at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and is a former adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

The co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, former Secretary of State James Baker, has already made headlines by saying that "stay the course" is no longer a viable strategy and that some kind of change will be required. The study group's final report is not due until after the November election, but Baker has insisted in several interviews over the past two weeks that the United States must place greater emphasis on diplomacy, including talks with avowed U.S. foes such as Syria and Iran, in an effort to stabilize Iraq. He has said the United States should place less emphasis on military force alone.

"I believe in talking to your enemies,'' Baker said in an interview on ABC. "'It's got to be hard-nosed, it's got to be determined. You don't give away anything, but in my view, it's not appeasement to talk to your enemies."

Baker's comments have been echoed by another prominent Republican, Virginia Sen. John Warner, the influential chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. After a visit to Iraq, Warner said he believes a change in course might be required if the situation does not improve in the next two months. Two other Republicans, Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, also have urged changes in policy.

Because it could lead to a major policy shift, the release of the study group's report could prove a critical event in the course of the war in Iraq.

Diamond said in an interview that he was expressing strictly his personal opinions, not necessarily those of the study group. He said he was prohibited by a confidentiality agreement from disclosing any of the group's internal discussions beyond what Baker himself has publicly provided.

But having studied the situation in Iraq closely almost from the time Saddam Hussein was toppled in April 2003, and having been involved in trying to build a functioning democracy there, Diamond said the one thing the United States might no longer have is time. The Bush administration needs to initiate a "crash program" to avoid a catastrophe, he said. A key element would include bringing in new U.S. leadership to rebuild America's battered credibility in Iraq and the region.

Diamond proposes a multipronged diplomatic strategy intended to woo secular groups away from extremists and to define a more equitable power-sharing arrangement within the fragile Iraqi government to build popular support.

If the Bush administration does not move rapidly in this direction and the violence continues to rise, Diamond said he fears Iraq's central government could be overthrown or collapse and the Iraqi military might disintegrate, leaving heavily armed militias controlled by the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis in a bloody struggle for power. The already heavy civilian death toll could soar still higher, dragging Iraq's neighbors into the chaos, he said.

The result, Diamond warned, could be the transformation of the Sunni-dominated Anbar province west of Baghdad into a zone effectively controlled by Islamic extremists, filled with terrorist training camps.

"What worries me more than any other single thing," Diamond said, "is if the country does effectively get broken up through a civil war -- and Anbar province, where most of the Sunnis live, becomes what Afghanistan was before 9/11."

At best, Diamond said, it appears the United States has a few months to implement a new strategy. He added, though, that an atrocity by an Iraqi group -- such as the bombing of the Askariya shrine, sacred to Shiites, in Samarra in February -- could trigger a cycle of retaliation that might spin out of control and give the United States even less time to act.

The first step the Bush administration should take is to renounce any plan to maintain permanent U.S. military bases in the country, said Diamond. Polls inside the country have shown that the vast majority of Iraqis fear that the secret U.S. aim is to continue to occupy Iraq and control its oil, a view that has fueled the insurgency.

The administration should simultaneously open discussions with the Sunnis, the Kurds and the Shiites aimed at instituting previously discussed revisions to the Iraqi Constitution to ensure that the minority Sunnis obtain a fair share of political power and an equitable portion of Iraq's oil wealth. Even insurgents should be part of the dialogue, he said.

"We need to have comprehensive, intensive, serious negotiations with the insurgents," Diamond said.

Diamond suggested that Baker, or another elder statesmen from outside the Bush White House, might be a good candidate to lead the effort.

"That's the only thing that's going to demonstrate that we're really changing course," said Diamond.

A fair arrangement, Diamond said, could peel away secular Sunnis from jihadi extremists, providing a firmer base of support for the Iraqi government. Those discussions, Diamond said, need to involve the United Nations, the European Union and other Arab governments in the region.

The United States should also announce plans for a flexible drawdown of troops over a period of from 18 months to 3 years, he said. Some troops should be redeployed to other countries in the region, such as Kuwait and Qatar, to ensure that the United States can respond swiftly to any crises, but a substantial number should return to their U.S. bases, he said.

And a large number of those troops should be sent to Afghanistan, Diamond added, to combat the Taliban resurgence there.

He emphasized that the Iraq plan should be flexible so that, if things stabilize, the troops can leave earlier or the drawdown can be slowed if violence flares.

"That's the only way of inducing the competing Iraqi political forces to take responsibility for the future of their country," he said.

As long as U.S. troops are seen as the sole guarantor of some level of stability, Diamond argued, Iraqi politicians will continue to stake out extreme positions and compete for all the power and wealth they can gain for their constituencies, without any sense that they need to build compromises to bring about stability on their own.

Diamond stressed that the Bush administration has to move forward on all these different tracks simultaneously, in part because they are interconnected and in part because there is no time to wait for the resolution of one issue before moving on to the next.

"This is the fourth quarter, there's two minutes left in the game, and we're down two touchdowns," said Diamond. "There may not be enough time left."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Republican Commission: Iraq War is Over -- We lost ?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 01:48:35