Almost there...

Thursday, January 11, 2007

A Surge in Troops, eh? That's the big plan?

I'm very annoyed with our president. Does he really think, I mean really, that adding a measly 14% more troops will somehow magically fix the problem in Iraq? He's FUBARed this from the start. There was no imminent crisis in Iraq. We should've finished what we started with Afghanistan, and watched and waited to see what developed in Iraq. Back when the weapons inspectors were allowed back into Iraq, why weren't they given the time to really inspect? Why did we go in haphazardly rather than waiting for enough evidence to mount to get the rest of the world on our side? Why didn't we work through the channels of the U.N. to get global support? Why did we pick a fight in a foreign civilization without understanding the existing political drama on the ground? Four years later, and with over 150,000 troops currently on the ground, over 3000 dead, at least 23,000 wounded, I still wonder why the heck we're even there in the first place. This shouldn't have been the mess that it is, but it is a huge mess, and it's turning out just as I expected four years ago.

And you know what? From the first moment this started, there's been no way to fix it. From March 19th, 2003, we've been on a non-stop ticket to hell. And this is so much worse than Vietnam, because the Vietnamese just wanted us out of their space. The Iraqi insurgents will come hunt us down and make us pay for our mistakes.

Okay, annoyed is just too much soft language. I hate our president for taking the international good will and sympathy we'd gained as a result of 9/11, and squandering it all like a vengeful teenager, and I hate that the rest of us will pay the price for his immaturity and ignorance for the rest of our lives. Stupid git.


  • Yes, all the naysayers (including you) were right when it came to starting the war, but we are there now and have to deal with it now.

    Bush's new surge strategery may work, or it may not. The current strategery obviously isn't. Do we escalate or do we leave?

    If we leave there will be chaos and a bloodbath that will ensue between the various factions. It's also very likely a militant Islamist regime will eventually take power, who will support terrorism with oil revenues. Iraq's fate will be one that will become like Rwanda in the short term, and eventually leads to a state like the Taliban ruled Afghanistan.

    Right now, leaving is truly the worst option. So let's try the surge.

    BTW, international good will is severely overated. If the world community agrees with what the US is doing, they say so, but usually only offer token assistance. If they disagree, they say so, but do little to actually hinder us. Either way their good will is often irrelevant. Face it, problems in the world community at large don't get resolved unless the US is part of the solution.

    If you ask me, the world should be more interested in keeping the USA's good will. Arrogant? You bet, but with good reason.

    Kevin M.

    By Blogger Kevin, at 11:01 AM  

  • While I know we should never have started this war to begin with (many political and economic avenues remained), we are there right now never the less. For the last four years we, as a nation, have asked the working poor and those unable to afford a college education without military service, and their families to make all the sacrifices for us (including over 3000 cases of the biggest sacrifice anyone can make). There has been no rationing, no tax increase, and heaven forbid we all give up our gas guzzlers. Meanwhile we have sacrificed privacy, free speech, and habeas corpus rights, but of course if you already have money and power that doesn't concern you.

    Even leaving out international goodwill (which we don't need for permission to start a war, but do need for trade agreements and the like), the economic debt we are saddling future generations with will be nearly impossible to climb out of. Not to mention the legions of young men and women who right now are learning to hate the United States with every fiber of their body as their family members get killed, maimed, and abducted in the night by American forces to fight a war on terror that they weren't even involved in when the war started, but boy will they be now.

    There are two options on the table right now. America either makes the sacrifices required to appropriately fund, staff, equip, and deploy to 'pacify' the very people we invaded to 'save' four years ago or we get out. Btw, those sacrifices would have to involve a draft that even the rich couldn't pull their children out of. Oh yeah, we tried the whole 'pacify' thing 35 years ago. That didn't go over very well.

    Btw, we also tried slow escalation 35 years ago along with secret wars in neighboring countries (Laos and Cambodia are now Iran and Syria) and that didn't work either. Also, this is not the first time we've escalated our troops in Iraq. It's at least the 4th and none of those other attempts worked either.

    If we get out and try politics and economic pressure/rewards instead we would at least be making progress, unlike we are today. Alas, the dopes in Washington, DC right now have no desire to play that angle. They are bushwacked by the Neo-con philosophy and enriching their friends via war profits and corruption.

    What we really need is the ability to go back in time 800 years or so and introduce some humanitarianism into the world's religious texts and teachings. Failing the ability to do that, we should at least try some of the same in the present day.

    By Blogger John, at 12:40 PM  

  • I heard a story, years ago, that when the British were pulling out of India they offered troops to Ghandi. If we leave, they told him, you'll have a civil war. Ah, yes, he replied, but it will be *our* civil war.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 10:47 PM  

  • "Hee hee hee. "Get her." That was your whole plan, huh, "get her." Very scientific. "
    Venkman, Ghostbusters

    So many things wrong with Surge.
    First off, before we do a surge,
    Let's determine what our objective is. Ok all you surge supporters, what has the Bush Adminstration stated our objective in Iraq to be (beyond the vague goal of 'win'). who will we know when we have won? Anyone ? Buehler?
    When there is ZERO political violence (are you willing to settle for a US backed dictatorship to make this happen?)?
    When there is a fully functioning democracy with broad support and participation by an informed Iraq electorate?
    When political parties are no longer dominated by religion?
    (Add your own here),
    Unless we have a clear idea as to what we want, it's pointless to offer a new strategy. Let's assume, though that it's one of the 3 above.

    A surge is a strong yet brief event. Think a surge of electrical current, lasts maybe a second, think a big wave on the ocean. So will a large but brief buildup of troops reach any of the above goals ?
    No, they won't. The surge is not a surge. It, like many Bushisms is a codeword. It either means, lots more troops for a few MORE YEARS at least,or it means more troops for a bit so we can salvage a tiny bit of credibility and then get the heck out of Iraq.

    Increase or completely leave is a false dilemma,
    You have the plan by the Iraqi Study Group (oh yeah, them, the group that was set up and subsequently ignored). You refocus the troops to training, and negotiate with Iran and Syria to stop funding insurgents. You stop funding and we'll leave you alone to a certain extent. It's not pretty, but nothing is and the bare fact is that, they live there. Unless the plan is to destabilize and replace their governments as well, they can simply wait as long as they need to.

    By Blogger Chris S, at 1:25 PM  

  • What they need in Iraq is a sadistic tyrant who will ruthlessly quell any uprising amongst the people. Maybe someone like Saddam.

    Sending more troops means that there are just more US soldiers for the insurgents to kill. I live in Australia but occasionally watch Jim Lehrer Newshour and it is very sad to see the names and faces of all the young soldiers who get killed every week.

    The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with freedom and democracy, it was all about oil and the egos of people like Rumsfeld.

    The US (and Australia and Britain) have been very successful in making the world a lot less safer than it was in the past.

    By Blogger Andrew, at 4:01 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home