Comments Posted By Your Image Here
Displaying 11 To 14 Of 14 Comments
DOES CONFRONTING TERRORISM MAKE IT WORSE?
QM said ''One such is what role should the military take in Nation Building?''.
Comment Posted By Your Image Here On 24.09.2006 @ 13:29
I think back to the early 90's when that term was coined. I remeber Rush Limbaugh spearing clinton with the phrase ''The purpose of the Military is not to be an 'international meals-on-wheels'. The purpose of the Military is to kill people and break things''.
The phrase ''winning their hearts and minds'' comes to mind here.
If we wanted ''to make an example'' out of iraq we did it EXACTLY the wrong way.
We made iraq look like 'threat #1' in 'the run-up to war'. So if iraq WAS INDEED 'threat #1' (and I never thought that it was) we should have left iraq as a message: ''SEE THAT? Be nice to us OR YOU'RE NEXT!''.
Instead by trying to 'nation-build' 'a new iraq' WITHOUT THROUGHLY 'enemy-defeating' it first, we have demonstrated our weakness to the iranians, north koreans, ect. ect.
How they are reacting to that does not suprise me at all.
It troubles me to see this reduced to ''it's all dan blather's fault''. No, it's not.
Comment Posted By Your Image Here On 24.09.2006 @ 12:49
It wasn't dan rather that ordered the invasion of iraq with the false premise of ''bringing the muslims freedom and democracy''.
It wasn't michael moore who failed to realize that iraq was the middle east's version of yugoslavia.
It wasn't cindy sheehan (who makes me puke) who failed to realize that we would need to replace saddam's death grip on iraq with our own and relax it very gradually (since we're using WWII anologies, that's EXACTLY how we handled Japan).
Nor was it rosie o'dimwit who failed to commit the resources nessessary to FORCE stability on iraq during this transition.
For those who use Vietnam as an anology, how effective was ''the 'vietnamization' of the war''?
And why are we repeating THAT blunder?
I lay the blame for our complete foulup in iraq squarely where it belongs; president homer simpson. (WHAT? 60% of iraqis support iran and not us? D'oh!!!)
I see sveral issues here:
Comment Posted By Your Image Here On 23.09.2006 @ 21:34
1. Did the Administration GROSSLY OVERSTATE the threat iraq posed to us in 'the run-up to war'? I cannot come to any other conclusion. Our own troops have proven that.
2. Did the Administration GROSSLY OVERSTATE what iraq would become once we invaded? Look at iraq NOW, it is indeed a failed state and I don't see anything we can do to change that fact. The massive input of troops and material that would be needed to FORCE stabilization of iraq are simply not available to us. We simply don't have those resources to ''commit'' to that task.
3. Your argument ''(can critics guarantee that Saddam never would have established operational ties with al-Qaeda?)'' is quite frankly, a false one.
Can you 'guarantee' that saddam WOULD have established operational ties with al-queda?
It's plain that hugo chavez is OPENLY trying to 'establish operational ties' with iran.
What's NOT plain is that iran even has any interest in doing so.
The strongest case made so far that 'saddam supports terrorists' is the acknowledged fact that saddam paid bounties to the families of 'palistinian' suicide bombers.
What undercuts that argument is the fact that the saudis were ALSO doing so pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom and I've not seen any evidence that they have stopped doing so NOW.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18326&only
Tell me do YOU think the saudis have stopped supporting terrorism?
Or for that matter have no formal or informal ties to al-quida?
The only thing I'm convinced is that Operation Iraqi Freedom has expended manpower and material that would have better served US interests elsewhere.
If anything, Operation Iraqi Freedom has made us appear WEAK to the iranians, north korea and now even to the government of venezula.
What do they see? A US Military THAT CAN'T IMPOSE ORDER in iraq (or for that matter, afghanistan).
THAT'S WHAT THEY SEE!!!
Is it any wonder WHY they've gotten downright arrogant toward us?
I'll use my own blog to expand on this.
I've been hearing this idea that we need to stay in iraq 'as a staging area' for action against iran. Now let's say we do just that in early '07, here are the problems:
Comment Posted By Your Image Here On 2.09.2006 @ 05:08
1. In order to have any real chance of succsessfully taking on iran would require about 90% of our forces currently in iraq now. It would be a de facto 'abandonment of iraq'.
2. That would immediatly plunge us into the worst possible situation; A 'Two-Front War' with the need to establish a rear guard to prevent our enemies BEHIND US (iraqi shias) from overrunning our offensive positions.
3. By attacking iran from within iraq our forces will be in a 'landlocked' position. With the primary means of resupply of manpower and material being by air.
4. Rick Moran ''danced around'' the other issue but I have no problem with saying it:
OUR ARMED FORCES ARE STRETCHED THIN. He noted that we are MOVING forces from areas that we have previously 'cleared' of the 'insurgency' in order to shore up our forces trying TO ESTABLISH some semblance of security in baghdad.
5. The iranians don't NEED the NYT,CNN or 'al-rueturs' to tell them what is going on in iraq. They can see (and hear from their shia iraqi allies) it for themselves...
