Too close for comfort...

It has been an ugly past couple of weeks in Iraq. According to officials, the surging violence and hostage taking by armed Guerilla fighters represents only a small minority of Iraq. According to Bush, our military is rapidly responding to the threats. I have to disagree, I think the response is too slow; to make matters worse, the problem in Iraq is just a fraction of the threat. Iran in particular, was emboldened by the removal of Hussein. Now that Hussein is gone, Iran has a huge stake in what happens to Iraq, obviously, Iran wants to end all this western style democracy nonsense.

The Iranian regime is a hard line Islamic government developing nuclear weapons with Russian support. How long will it be until the US will be forced to war with Iran? Speaking of Russian support, even notice how every insurgant appears with a shiny new Russian RPG launcher? Iran has been posturing for a war with the United States since 1979.What is going to happen with North Korea, a regime lead by an ego maniacal dictator who is threatening to use nuclear weapons? If Iraqi freedom is any indication of our ability to rapidly react, and react decisively, the last two weeks would indicate that we can falter. The right call in Fallujah would have been to interrupt that bridge scene with AC-130 gun ships spraying liberal amounts of machine gun rakings, to make matters worse, the response came a week later, and now Marines are being held back in the middle of that response, halted from advancing on the Sunni enemy with a cease fire. I hate the thought of war and people getting killed, but if the US effort is to be successful then the US is going to have to show decisive victory and control over the Sunni Triangle, If they are not going to go through with it 100% pack our men up and bring them home.

I have noticed a Napoleonic quality to US response, the pitched battles and long pauses. Ironically it was Napoleons quick battlefield decisions that eventually made him emperor of France.

I don’t think a situation like Fallujah or the convoy attack can sit for a week without response. The term response is unfortunate enough to begin with. The term response indicates military forces on defense. A real time counterattack is necessary to crush the momentum and morale of the enemy.

So, Anthony, am I uspposed to sit my 11 year old down and read all this to her?

It's this kind if idealistic claptrap that pisses me off.

I had written a whole bunch more, but none of it was very nice so I deleted it. I'll save it for later and for someone more deserving of my wrath than you.

I thought you were asking about the recent violence in Iraq and what I thought about it, so I replied. You can attack me if you like because I am out numbered. The sentence in your blog was broken; it left out information about who “Shea” was. I re-read it along with your reply and now I understand.

The US is now in a very difficult situation. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, believing they knew better than the generals, went in with a much smaller force than was recommended. We now see that there are a significant number conflicts developing which a larger force may have been able to control but which have now gotten out of hand. The occupying force has managed to bring about it's worst nightmare a unification of the Sunnis and Shiites against a common enemy. The hawks in government believed that the Iraqi population would see them as saviours for getting rid of Saddam but this was never going to be enough. After all, we are not talking about a united country here but a collection of areas that are split along ethnic and religious lines. The only thing keeping them in check, until last year, was a brutal dictator. Now he has been removed some of these groups are starting to flex their muscles. And, by embedding themselves in the general population, the militants are forcing the US to move against that population. This will only turn popular opinion, already suspicious of US motives, against them. The sight of a fully armed combat soldier kicking down your neighbours door or aircraft bombing the local Mosque is not going to win the hearts and minds of the locals. Some have called Iraq George Bush's Vietnam. I dont think you can say that, but one comparison seems clear to me: a huge factor in Vietnam was that the US lost the support of the Vietnamese population because the Viet Cong used the same tactic of infiltrating the general population, forcing the US army to deal harshly with all locals as they could not tell friend from foe. The same situation is developing in Iraq. I have heard some Americans say that the US should just pull out, but if they do the country will almost certainly descend into civil war as Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds turn against each other trying to fill the power vacuum. And, if civil war does happen, the conflict will not stay within the borders of Iraq but spread to other areas of the Middle East, a frightening scenario and one the US cannot and will not allow to happen. (The inplications for Israel would be unthinkable to the US as well as the threat to oil supplies.)
I dont know what the answer is but then I was never for invading in the first place, Saddam was being kept well in check and there was another more important battle to fight - al Qaeda. Whatever happens, dont expect the troops home soon.

I understand that we have removed the infrastructure of government there, and because we, the US, removed that structure we feel we are obligated to help build another one. This all goes back to the US acting as the 'World's Policeman'...an ideal I'm not sure I agree with, then again I'm hardly well versed in world politics.

My point in writing this article was that the war, this conflict, has now walked right up on my porch and knocked at my front door. It's no longer an ideal, a theory to be discussed among polite (and sometimes not so polite) company over tea and biscuits. It's real, tangible now. I can't ignore it anymore. I don't like that.

Shea is an 11 year old somewhat precocious girl. Her statement last night, whilst childlike in it's simplicity, made a lot of sense.

Oh, and Jamie...I can't see the image that you posted. Sorry.

Yeah. I guess that the link broke down. It worked at first! Here it is again.

Cheers.

But seriously: what a mess.

It baffles me how the folks in charge of the US thought that they could just walk into Iraq and be greeted as heroes.

With the way that the winds are blowing now, it seems like the US troops will leave (sooner than later,) and then the Iraqis will get to sort everything out by themselves. Sounds like a recipe for civil war and religious infighting.

I'd bet that the end result will be worse than what it was before. Maybe a new Taliban?

Good replies. Left to their own thoughts, Americans can see the reality of their Presidents' decisions.

Personally, I support immediate withdrawal from Iraq. the reason for going was bogus, the dictator is removed, there are no WMD. I've said before, as far as I'm concerned they can beat each other over the head with baseball bats and call it an election. I do not care what the Iraqi people do from now on, unless it is shoot at or terrorize Americans. Either nuke em or get out.

The daily worries of tens of thousands of our youths' relatives and friends are not worth the whole nation of Iraq being allowed to use 'Diebold' machines to vote in rigged elections of the puppet regime we are propping up. Bring our troops home and do it NOW I say.

As to the 'Vietnamization' spoken of, I know of the historical meaning used. I use it in the context of American opinion that war waged on foreign soil for reasons un-related to our national security, is not popular and of no worthy time, life, or investment. This is Bush's Vietnam and he is failing in the polls not because of Bin laden or Saddam, but his inability to lead us in this endeavor. He just ain't the one for this time and place in history - at least helping us dig out of this quagmire around the globe he's gotten us into.

Here here, Wahkonta. We did what we set out to do, so now it's time to come home. Why are we there? What are we gaining economically that causes us to stay there? We're so obviously not wanted there, and, as was pointed out in a previous post, the different Iraqi factions are going to end up unifying against the American presence. I don't think that we have the numbers or the manning necessary to do the job properly; it's going to be a half-assed attempt that has, and will continue to cost American lives.

Read before you get angry with me, please.

I was against the war. Bad timing, misleading. It was the wrong war at the wrong time. We cannot, cannot, cannot just LEAVE though. It's not just about being the 'world's policeman.' There is a lesson that has been learned time and time again...most notably with Germany just before the Third Reich. That is...once a country with any national identity has been beaten, they must not be held in poverty, and there must not be a vaccuum of power there. Instead, we must shape, control, and fund the rebuilding procedure. This is especially true with Iraq -- it is a big enough country, with tons of natural resources, many educated, hard working people, etc. In short...you add insult to injury with a country like this, in a matter of one decade they can threaten the security of, not just their region, but a large portion of the globe.

It is wrong for us to be there, but we're there. I've got a billion relatives and friends over there, and I hate it every day. But we have to stay the course. Does that mean we have to continue on BUsh's plan? No. Not at all. We should all vote for whoever runs against the man, actually. The administration has failed to understand the international as well as geopolitical consequences of invading Iraq for fallacious reasons. This, mark my word, has been the worst mistake the US government has ever made, and we will pay the price for generations to come. But that doesn't mean we should leave, letting the rich country of Iraq fall under control of a dictator. Fascism is not dead, ladies and gentlemen, it is just sleeping (on George W. Bush's couch.)

D

I did read, and I'm not angry. I agree with what you said too, as odd as that may seem. I WANT our guys to come home...I WANT the US to get the fuck out of there...but what I want and what's practical and the right thing to do are often two different things. I understand, as I said, that we've gone in and removed the dictatorship and we are therefore obligated to stay and help rebuild. I simply think that the US went about it in a half-assed manner, and now it's costing us.

Dharma,
I think it is interesting that you ask a philosophical and almost religious question by a wise child and you got political answers. The only thing that I can see is that life is unfair and because it is unfair, people with power can do what they want and children lose their daddies and mommies. Even though life is unfair, there are people who love and care for children and those children who lose their daddies or mommies will be loved and comforted. Life should be fair. But its not. The other thing you can tell her is that if the soldiers stay longer then maybe some Iraqi children will not lose their parents to civil war. This however is a big maybe.

Good point, Sherye.

I think Shea's question was more political than it was anything else. She wanted to know why the US was in Iraq in the first place. We had another conversation this monring that invloved my showing and telling her what conditions were like in Iraq before Saddam was removed, and she's a little more understanding of they why's and wherefore's now. She also said that if she could vote she'd never vote for Bush....

...does anyone have any news websites that are sutiable for teens/pre teen kids? I'm at a loss...she's old enough to have a rudimentary grasp of the politics involved but too young for adult news sites.

It strikes me that most of these questions are so emotion-charged that even when the answers don't make sense, nobody can tell because their views are so emotion-charged as well. I guess that's why we have a governement.

And I just want to respond quickly to the comment about Bush. For heaven's sakes, don't vote against Bush. Vote for the person you want to be president. Remember when America decided to support North Korea because we just wanted to avoid supporting communism? Was what we supported much better? Be reasonable.

~Dan

Reply By: heyhey(Anonymous User)Posted: Sunday, April 11, 2004The US is now in a very difficult situation. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, believing they knew better than the generals, went in with a much smaller force than was recommended

>>
>>



I don’t think Rummy and co. thought Iran and Syria would have the balls to get into the war, well surprise, those guys aren’t about to lay around in recliners while the US builds a western style democracy in their backyard. The concept of a western style democracy is not going to fly with hard line Islamic clerics in Iran who have busy building nuclear weapons to kill, or blackmail us with. More troops will be necessary to guard the Iranian and Syrian borders. Someone has to stem the flow of foreign fighters on the borders, a monumental task as evidenced by the fact that we can’t even keep Mexicans from crossing illegally into the US.

The Vietnam comparison is not realistic. Iraq is nothing like Vietnam for a number of reasons the biggest reason is that the Vietcong had no desire to export the fight to American shores.

As for the cease fire in Fallujah, I don’t see how the hearts and mind thing can work in the Sunni Triangle. The Sunni enemy is hosting thousands of foreign fighters in their region, Al Qaida fighters, Iranian fighters, Hezbollah fighters, which have all arrived to take on coalition forces, the only formula here is brute force.

Hey Dan, why would I vote for a person who lied to me to go to war, a person whos lies have caused the death of 650 of our soldiers...650 Dads (as Shea says) husbands, sons or brothers. A man who was so intent on getting Saddam at any cost that he took troops out of Afghanistan and away from the hunt from Al Qaeda to go and invade a country that was no threat to the US in the first place. In the two years that Bush has spent on this 'adventure' Al Qaeda has gone from strength to strength. To win the war on terror we were going to need a lot of international cooperation and our President has deliberately squandered almost all international good will that we had (apart from a few rogue states like Pakistan of course.) We are in a mess in Afghanistan and Iraq with no exit strategy for either. They said after 9/11 that Bush was the right man for the job...well the 2 1/2 years since has shown that there could not have been a worse person in charge.
I hope you never have anyone close die in Iraq and I pray for those who have.

Anthony R.
Some good points. My only comparison with Vietnam was I feel that if you lose the support of ordinary Iraqis then you really do lose the war.
I also wonder what sort of democracy can be imposed by 'brute force'

I also wonder what sort of democracy can be imposed by 'brute force'

I was wondering the same thing too. How can we force the citizens of a country to adhere to a political system they don't want and don't agree with? How is what we're doing over there (enforcing our way of life and government ie, democracy) any better than Al Qaeda forcing the citizens of the US to convert to their way of life? If recent news reports are anything to go by, we seem to be losing the support of the Iraqi people...they are, as Anthony pointed out, presenting a unified front against the US and Allied forces. They just want us out, plain and simple.

Shea and I had a talk again this afternoon, and she's now wondering how many more dad's are going to have to die in this "worthless, neverending" (her exact words) fight.

Reply By: heyhey(Anonymous User)Posted: Sunday, April 11, 2004
Hey Dan, why would I vote for a person who lied to me to go to war

Hey hey you can debate whether or not you think the removal of Hussein was for the greater good but I am disappointed when you tow the shrill party line, “bush lied” at one time or another just about every government official on both sides of the isle has claimed that Hussein was a threat and possessed WMD. Clinton made statements about Hussein’s WMD does that make him a liar?



Reply By: dharmagrl Posted: Sunday, April 11, 2004
I also wonder what sort of democracy can be imposed by 'brute force'

When I said brute force was needed I didn’t mean among the Shia or peaceful Iraqis, only in the dangerous Sunni Triangle where Batthist, Al Qaida, Hezbollah, Iranian, and every jihad kook who wants to skin an American alive and praise Allah for a good days work.

dharma girl, I dont necessarily agree that ordinary Iraqis do not want a democracy. I think they probably do but it strikes me that one country cannot enforce a democracy on another country, they can only put in place an environment where, given the right conditions, democracy will take root and flourish. But a movement of the people must come from the people. Democracy firstly has to be desired by the country and believed in passionately. Take our own democracy, it was a hard fought and bloody battle but it is a success purely because the people believed in it enough to fight and die for. Are the Iraqis at that stage yet? I dont think so. For them to reach that stage they have to first be convinced that a system of government that they have never experienced is right for them and then for them to work out their own form of democracy.
Good luck with your little girl, she sounds bright and enquiring, you sound like you are doing a good job with her in challenging times. I have 2 children 6 and 4 and I am lucky that they are not asking the hard questions at the moment

Anthony R
There is no doubt that Saddam had WMD at some stage. Prior to the war the UN inspectors were making real progress but our government would not let them finish the job. Before the war the claims were that the intelligence pointed to an advanced WMD programs whereas we now learn that this intelligence was actually saying we dont know. The current hawks in Washington ignored any evidence to the contrary and exagerated evidence to support their desire for war. The only way the world was going to find out if Saddam still had WMD was to go in and find out, and the UN weapons inspectors were finding out the truth i.e. WMDs did not exist. If they had been allowed to continue their job no invasion would have been necessary.

As to your other point, the whole of Iraq is a power play. Al Sadr, causing the US so much trouble, is a Shia.

So According to your information Al-Sadr represents all the Shia?

"Hey Dan, why would I vote for a person who lied to me to go to war, a person whos lies have caused the death of 650 of our soldiers...650 Dads (as Shea says) husbands, sons or brothers."

Etc..etc... first of all, you're eating up the nonsense that the media is feeding you. Do your own research and stay away from the newspapers and TV's. You're the kind of gullible person that gives the media it's oppressive power. If you really think that Bush is a compulsive liar and we "needlessly attacked Iraq" (an innocent, innocuous country that never caused any trouble), then you're beyond reasoning with.

I don't take political tips from pre-pubescents. It's very cute, but hardly holds water.

~Dan