An unidentified farmer in a fairly remote area who, after being asked by Recon Marines (searching for Syrians) if he had seen any foreign fighters in the area replied, “Yes, you.”
:lol: 
:lol:
Steve,
simple answer - the Syrians were invited in.
Uh huh, by al-Queda.
Steve,
who invited in the ‘coalition of the willing’? Certainly was not the U.N. If one believes in existence of WOMD then I suppose that one believes the tenuous ‘link’ of an Al Qaeda operative to a high-ranking Iraqi officer that met in Poland or somewhere, prior to the invasion. No doubt there were more Al Qaeda and other ‘invitees’ in Iraq, post-2003, than previously.
Tim,
The “coalition of the willing” is the misnomer of the millenium, “coalition of the gullible and coerced” is much closer to reality.
HJ,
careful, or you will be co-accused of personally attacking other forum members or told to switch to decaf coffee or maybe limit your consumption of Fosters beer. I do drink coffee, but definately do not consume alcohol, so the Fosters connotation is not appropriate. Next suggestion will probably be a frontal lobotomy (the bottle in front of me has already been suggested), as I have the indignence to actually form my own opinion on a topic and not follow the ‘party line’.
Ok, then if it was not al-Queda after 2003, who was it?
BTW, a large stash of yellow cake was found in Iraq, post 2003. Gee, that wasn’t reported? Go figure.
Saddam himself was misleading the world into thinking that he had WMD’s to keep Iran out.
And, now, I haven’t drank the kool-aid. I thought that the invasion was ill-advised. However, I agree with General Powell. Since we broke it, we own it and have to fix it.
Steve,
I agree. One cannot create a power vacuum and then walk out. However, a little more thought given to the pre-invasion plans and more non-partisan decision making given as regards who would administer the aftermath, could have achieved a different result. Mismanagement leading to disbanding a 30,000 plus Iraqi army, without even disarming them, plus disbanding the existing Bath Party ruled public service are two legacies that lead to the failure. The common Iraqi welcomed the invasion with open arms. However, the welcome was short lived. Very much like the fall of Russian communism. Non- Communist Party members welcomed the fall of the Russian Party, but shortcomings were soon evident. Free enterprise lead to unemployment and food shortages. Under communism everyone had a job and government housing and food (though probably not much of it).
The Bush administration seemed to think that military success was the only victory. Like postwar rebuilding of Japan, a success is measured by how well the defeated country views the 'aggressors' post war actions. I feel that handled better, then Iraqi insurgents could have been nipped in the bud by maintaining the existing Iraqi army and the existing Bath Party administered public service could have kept the country running and avoided the post-invasion mayhem with looting and destruction of public property. Maintaining the existing infrastructure did not bode well with the Bush postwar policy. Bush wanted a 'ground zero' situation for his partisan buddies to build on. A study of key personnel in the rebuilding effort (both administrative and rebuilding contracts) has shown that only Republican cohorts were given the green light to do their stuff in Iraq - partisan jobs for loyal service to the party. A Democrat government, if in power, would have done the same thing, assuming they had made the decision to invade the country.
Insurgents (ex-Army) fuelled with massive ex-Iraqi army munitions dumps and Shiites armed with Iranian armaments were the new 'enemy' post 2003. In these circumstances one did not even need to worry about Al-Qaeda's involvement. We have Sunnis and Kurds and Shiites all wanting a piece of the pie and removing the Saddam 'muscle' provided them with a platform to mount their own personal ambitions.Well, after the fall of Bagdad, there really was no Iraqi Army, they just took off their uniforms and went home. But, they could have been recalled, I suppose. Not to do that was a mistake, in retrospect. Hindsight is always 20/20, isn’t it? Monday morning quarterbacks never get sacked and always complete all of their passes.
Not taking out al Sadar in 2004 was a mistake, too. There were lots of mistakes.
So, what would you do to fix it. I have just promoted you to 4 star general and given you command in Iraq. What are your plans, mon General? Crying about yesterday won’t help. Pointing the finger at Bush won’t help. You have the conn. The responsibility is yours. Where do we go from here?
Steve,
the movements of Al Sadar were reported daily for over 18 months. Washington would have nothing of committing to an assassination. Hindsight would say a hit should have been made, but also leaders will be required in the years to come and possibly Al Saddar may be just such the person to lead the country. The U.S. approved a bunch of exiled Iraqis to lead the country. These people all had axes to grind with the government existing at the time of the invasion. Many have been accused of corruption since taking up office, post-invasion. They were picked because they were pro-U.S. Remember that Yasser Aarafat was a terrorist and Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for terrorism crimes against his country and yet both men showed their true resolve by being stalwart cornerstones of their emerging nations. Without either man the futures of both Palestine and South Africa would have been markedly different.
What would General Tim do right now? To start off, the existing Iraqi government needs to be made aware that it is their country and time to get their act together. A cohesive, non-aligned government is needed. Under Saddam we had a one-party government which seemed to actually work at keeping the country together. However, the Sunnis need to be encouraged to exert more 'interest' in the way their country is run. The three main racial groups in Iraq will need to work more closely together for the good of the country and not their own personal greed. Increased military might is not the solution. Billions of dollars were supposedly funnelled into Iraq to rebuild infrastructure. Unfortunately, many billions of Iraqi money also flowed back to the States with seemingly little change in fullfilling the basic needs of the Iraqi population. Water and reliable electric power are still not available. Hospitals and schools funded under the initial rebuilding plan have not come to fruition. Rebuilding works have been carried out to a substandard quality level. Five years later the locals are worse off than under the Saddam regime and their anger is showing. Very few believe that oil was not the motivating force. Look to the other brutal regimes in the world. America has not invaded Zimbabwe or Burma and yet Iraq has come under their interest three times in less than 15 years.
The Iraqis need a definate plan for rebuilding and troop withdrawal. History has shown that enduring peace is not an option in the region and only an indigenous government is going to have any chance of success. The Kurds want their own homeland. The Shiites want stronger ties with Iran and the Sunnis want back the power they once held. All are recipes for disaster. America needs to show all racial groups that they have their interests at heart by negotiating a peace settlement which includes a defined withdrawal date. Negotiation while holding a loaded pistol to one's head is not a bargaining tool. The United States needs to show that they have the interests of the Iraqis at heart and not personal gain. Negotiation is not a sign of weakness, but if left too late will be seen as an American strategic retreat. The middle east is familiar with a history of colonising superpowers being unable to conquer individual regions. All have tried and none have succeeded, even back to the mid-1800's. Negotiation needs to satisfy the basic needs of the Iraqi population and give them a reason to trust the west. In essence, they are treated as a defeated population and yet most Iraqis welcomed the Americans in 2003. The intitial euthoria of the removal of Saddam was quickly replaced by the general feeling that one dictator was replaced by another. The Iraqis need to be treated with respect, as a nation and not as an oil well.Steve Featherkile said:Very simple. Divide Iraq into three sectors. The sector bordering Saudi Arabia would be Sunni and put under the guidance of Saudi Arabia. The Shiite sector would be under guidance of Iran. The Kurdish North I would put under Syria's direction. Give the Shiite's,Sunni's and Kurds an equal ownership of the oil. Ralph
So, what would you do to fix it. I have just promoted you to 4 star general and given you command in Iraq. What are your plans, mon General? Crying about yesterday won't help. Pointing the finger at Bush won't help. You have the conn. The responsibility is yours. Where do we go from here?
Ralph Berg said:I might add each sector would have an autonomous government under a "national" government where Shiite's, Sunni's and Kurds would have equal representation. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria would act as "Big Brothers" to their corresponding sector. RalphSteve Featherkile said:Very simple. Divide Iraq into three sectors. The sector bordering Saudi Arabia would be Sunni and put under the guidance of Saudi Arabia. The Shiite sector would be under guidance of Iran. The Kurdish North I would put under Syria's direction. Give the Shiite's,Sunni's and Kurds an equal ownership of the oil. Ralph
So, what would you do to fix it. I have just promoted you to 4 star general and given you command in Iraq. What are your plans, mon General? Crying about yesterday won't help. Pointing the finger at Bush won't help. You have the conn. The responsibility is yours. Where do we go from here?
That Yellowcake was already documented by Hans Blix and the UN inspectors before we invaded–it’s not anything we didn’t already know about, AND it was ther legally. It’s not the WMDs you’re looking for.
In 2002 I was invited to attend some sessions on Iraq at the Council on Foreign Relations in DC. There were a bunch of big time policy people there, some in govt. and some former govt officials. There was a former head of the CIA there. I was really shaken by it–I came home and told my wife “we’re going to invade Iraq.” The startling thing was no one was making a case against it. There were conservatives in the room, and liberals, and centrists, and they were all assuming an invasion was necessary and needed. I kept thinking “but there isn’t much evidence of WMDs,” and “Invading Iraq is gong to be a HUGE mess.” But I didn’t speak because I was kind of a personal guest at the thing and I’m not a foreign policy expert. It would not have mattered–no one in that room was hearing any dissent or disagreement.
The Iraq invasion was one of those odd moments when evidence and reason go out the window, and some kind of deeper impulse takes over. It’s been clear since 2003 that not only was the evidence bad, but they didn’t even do any planning–the admin was simply indifferent to doing the hard work of planing for the occupation and administration. it’s been a disaster, and it’s hard to see what good will come of it. I’m really glad violence is down, and hope it stays down, but we’re going to get another muslim theocracy in Iraq. The best we’ll get is a veneer of secular democracy. As far as I’ve seen, the best and most unbiased source on the Iraq war is Trainor and Gordon’s “Cobra II .” It makes it really clear–there was a gross failure of responsibility at the top. They were awash in their own fantasies
Mike,
there was also the ulterior motive of 23 billion dolars in confiscated/frozen Iraqi assets, seized in the 90’s. By the time the ‘elected’ Iraqi governemnt took power around 18 months later, only 7 - 8 billion remained. There were no checks and balances for money handed out. Plane loads of palletised money were being shipped, ex-reserve bank, to Iraq on a regular basis, as no-one in Iraq would accept anything other than U.S. dollars. A cash cow ripe for looting.
The administration was determined to go in and no amount of evidence to the contrary was going to stop the invasion. Look to the 'leftovers' ("dubya's advisers" - the neo-cons) from the first Bush regime in the early 90's, for the impetus behind the invasion. The administrative confusion in Washington, post-invasion and inability to make basic decisions was evidence of poor pre-invasion planning. The primary goal was to remove Saddam from office. Everything else was left to chance. The administration was blinded by oil and easy money, ripe for plucking.Ralph,
the problem is that the oil is in the north (Kurdish control) and in the south (Shiite control). The Sunnis are basically in the middle. The Kurds are already contracting oil out to foreign companies against the decree of the centralised Iraqi congress. Peace is an improbability as each racial group has their own agenda and though the Kurds and Shiites are willing to negotiate, on a limited basis, the Sunnis see their position as markedly deteriorated and having little chance of attaining an equal representative footing in Baghdad.
The 'selected' Iraqi Congress are as impotent in power as the western world selected Afghani government. They have limited internal domestic power and control only their immediate backyard. The rest of the country is ruled by the law of the west - shoot first and ask questions later. Iraq will come to be dominated by Afghani styled warlords, rich on oil income and not the heroin income of the Afghanis. Surprising that under the 1990's Taliban regime, heroin poppy production was banned in the Taliban-dominated south of the country. Post 2001 invasion, the Taliban encourage the growth of the poppy for income. Maybe Pakistani 'support' has dwindled under American scrutiny.Well, I asked General Tim to come up with a plan, and all he did was whine about missing money. Of course there are crooks in high places. Telling me that the Iraqi gummint needs to get its act together is not a plan. Tim, you can do better. Focus!
Ralph at least tried. Tim pointed out the major flaw in that plan, though, the Sunnis don’t have any oil.
Now, under Maliki, 15 of the 18 objectives have been met, or are well on their way to being met. Maliki has cracked down on the Shia militias, giving the Sunnis a sense that there just might be a chance for a country called Iraq. Maliki is a Shi’ite. There has been no, repeat NO, sectarian violence in the past 10 weeks. That is 2 and a half months, folks! It looks to me as if the Iraqi gummint, for all its flaws is getting its act together. The Sunnis are again participating in the gummint.
How long did it take the United States to get its act together after Yorktown? Yorktown was 1781, The Constitution was not ratified until 1787. The Civil War ended in 1865. There are some who say we really don’t have our act together, yet.
Think of what has been accomplished. A democracy of some fashion has been established right in the middle of the Middle East! Who would have though it possible? Yes, there were lots of wrongs committed, but there are a lot of right things happening. Let’s get behind the right things and make sure they stick.
Tim Brien said:
Ralph, the problem is that the oil is in the north (Kurdish control) and in the south (Shiite control). The Sunnis are basically in the middle. The Kurds are already contracting oil out to foreign companies against the decree of the centralised Iraqi congress. Peace is an improbability as each racial group has their own agenda and though the Kurds and Shiites are willing to negotiate, on a limited basis, the Sunnis see their position as markedly deteriorated and having little chance of attaining an equal representative footing in Baghdad.The 'selected' Iraqi Congress are as impotent in power as the western world selected Afghani government. They have limited internal domestic power and control only their immediate backyard. The rest of the country is ruled by the law of the west - shoot first and ask questions later. Iraq will come to be dominated by Afghani styled warlords, rich on oil income and not the heroin income of the Afghanis. Surprising that under the 1990's Taliban regime, heroin poppy production was banned in the Taliban-dominated south of the country. Post 2001 invasion, the Taliban encourage the growth of the poppy for income. Maybe Pakistani 'support' has dwindled under American scrutiny.</blockquote>Like I said, you give them each a equal share of the oil. Physical location of the oil is immaterial. All the oil is produced by one entity, of which each has an equal stake.
With oil in the North and South, it is probable there is also oil in the “middle” they either haven’t found or looked for yet.
Ralph
Steve Featherkile said:What right do we have to invade a sovereign country to establish a Democracy of "some sort"? And what giant hypocrites are we when at the same time we give China "favored trade nation" status ? Wonderful Democracy going on there....:lol: Meanwhile we piss and crap on Cuba. I suppose Cuba is a bigger threat than China? Hah..................
Think of what has been accomplished. A democracy of some fashion has been established right in the middle of the Middle East! Who would have though it possible? Yes, there were lots of wrongs committed, but there are a lot of right things happening. Let's get behind the right things and make sure they stick.
Ralph
Ralph Berg said:Steve Featherkile said:What right do we have to invade a sovereign country to establish a Democracy of "some sort"? And what giant hypocrites are we when at the same time we give China "favored trade nation" status ? Wonderful Democracy going on there....:lol: Meanwhile we piss and crap on Cuba. I suppose Cuba is a bigger threat than China? Hah..................
Think of what has been accomplished. A democracy of some fashion has been established right in the middle of the Middle East! Who would have though it possible? Yes, there were lots of wrongs committed, but there are a lot of right things happening. Let's get behind the right things and make sure they stick.Ralph
We have to keep Cuba poor and destitute…where else can we lock up our POW’s and throw away the key?
Don’t accuse me of being a liberal, but I can honestly say like so many others, I am embarrased by our handling of the whole affair. At least we got that scum bag Bin-Laden…oh wait a minute…
Steve Featherkile said:
An unidentified farmer in a fairly remote area who, after being asked by Recon Marines (searching for Syrians) if he had seen any foreign fighters in the area replied, "Yes, you.":lol:
Forgot to add…danged funny! Farmer probably got a one-way ticket to Gitmo but I appreciate his sense of humor.