218-208 ! Bring Em Home!

[ashw_justin]

Now let me say to pull out right now would be a disservice to us, to the Iraqi people and to the rest of the world. If we leave right now we are basically leaving a country unprotected to civil war, corruption, which would probably leave it as a perfect breeding ground for terrorist group. We need to see this out until there is more stability before leaving or else we leaving it worse than when we began. As for our troops dying in the line of fire, yeah that sucks, but nobody forced individuals to enlist. Our soldiers enlisted (for Gawd knows what reason) and hopefully knew that being a soldier is not a free ride and there is a chance they could see frontline somewhere in the world and possibly die. You can't expect that you can go to war without deaths, that is fucking rediculus. Hell I am surprised with the low number of US soldier deaths to be honest, I thought for sure that there would be more, I couldn't imagine Iraq being an easy place to fight.

 

Yes, the Iraqis need a peacekeeping force, but one that actually means it when it says that violence is wrong--and that cannot be the U.S. Yes the casualties (with all due respect) are relatively low (50,000 in Vietnam?), and this suggests that 'war' is a misnomer for our activities in Iraq. Our war is over (we attacked and defeated Iraq), and what remains is a civil war that we can't fight (and aren't) for them even if we wanted to--we can only try to mediate how the rival factions in Iraq work out their differences. Unfortunately, the U.S. executive branch is in no place to defuse the situation, because it already showed that as far as it's concerned, violence trumps diplomacy.

 

An international peacekeeping force that isn't commanded directly by the United States would be more appropriate, and certainly more acceptable to the peoples and powers of the region. Unfortunately, the current U.S. government has never been interested in being a team player. Why? One possibility is that the notion of essentially owning (overtly or covertly) a middle eastern country is far too attractive.

[tvashtarkatena]

Your strategic acumen is vastly overrated.

 

Lighten up, Mike.

[Serenity]

Your strategic acumen is vastly overrated.

 

Lighten up, Mike.

 

I float on a cloud of levity, Pat.

[Serenity]

Good points Ken.

 

I am not so sure about the Iraqi's wanting Europa on their sovereign lands anymore than the Americans Justin. I think there is a reason why terrorists groups have been complicit towards Europe, and that's because they must understand that Europe is now the sleeping giant, as compared to the US formerly holding that role. To risk large scale European involvement in the GWOT would mean expansion of military/paramilitary/FEDLE involvement in shutting down their networks.

 

In order for an effective peacekeeping force to get into position there must be a strong economic incentive for NATO to do so.

 

Until Europe can get their hands on a big old piece of that fat moneypie (which ironically some economists say is the reason we went in without their approval), then they will continue to waffle.

 

I would change the paradigm of the world considerably if I were President. I would dial up old Kim in Norte' Korea, and tell him I was going to immediately petition the UN to lift all sanctions on his country, open direct trade arrangements, invite him over for face to face talks, and then kindly ask him to send 200K of his finest to Iraq to squash (without mercy) our Arabs friends little sectarian issues.

 

Then I'd call up our Persian boy over in Iran, and see if he was interested in cutting the House of Saud out of the big oil equation once and for all.

 

Keep your enemies closer...

[tvashtarkatena]

Your strategic acumen is vastly overrated.

 

Lighten up, Mike.

 

I float on a cloud of levity, Pat.

 

Yeah, but when are you going to float on the end of a climbing rope? Tis the season....

[Serenity]

Your strategic acumen is vastly overrated.

 

Lighten up, Mike.

 

I float on a cloud of levity, Pat.

 

Yeah, but when are you going to float on the end of a climbing rope? Tis the season....

 

Someday. I might not get the chance to climb in the Cascades during the regular season until summer 2009. I have done some climbing in the Hindu Kush, but it's not the main reason I'm over here of course.

 

http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/24/2081/640/DSCN0317.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/2769/3635/1600/Tom_BW2.jpg

[ken4ord]

Now let me say to pull out right now would be a disservice to us, to the Iraqi people and to the rest of the world. If we leave right now we are basically leaving a country unprotected to civil war, corruption, which would probably leave it as a perfect breeding ground for terrorist group. We need to see this out until there is more stability before leaving or else we leaving it worse than when we began. As for our troops dying in the line of fire, yeah that sucks, but nobody forced individuals to enlist. Our soldiers enlisted (for Gawd knows what reason) and hopefully knew that being a soldier is not a free ride and there is a chance they could see frontline somewhere in the world and possibly die. You can't expect that you can go to war without deaths, that is fucking rediculus. Hell I am surprised with the low number of US soldier deaths to be honest, I thought for sure that there would be more, I couldn't imagine Iraq being an easy place to fight.

 

Yes, the Iraqis need a peacekeeping force, but one that actually means it when it says that violence is wrong--and that cannot be the U.S. Yes the casualties (with all due respect) are relatively low (50,000 in Vietnam?), and this suggests that 'war' is a misnomer for our activities in Iraq. Our war is over (we attacked and defeated Iraq), and what remains is a civil war that we can't fight (and aren't) for them even if we wanted to--we can only try to mediate how the rival factions in Iraq work out their differences. Unfortunately, the U.S. executive branch is in no place to defuse the situation, because it already showed that as far as it's concerned, violence trumps diplomacy.

 

An international peacekeeping force that isn't commanded directly by the United States would be more appropriate, and certainly more acceptable to the peoples and powers of the region. Unfortunately, the current U.S. government has never been interested in being a team player. Why? One possibility is that the notion of essentially owning (overtly or covertly) a middle eastern country is far too attractive.

 

I completely agree, but right now there does not seem to be any interest to get involved from the international community and I don't blame them. Hell we went into Iraq essentially flipping off the rest of the world and doing what we want. I imagine the international community is now approaching Iraq as, the US made the mess, they can clean it up.

[Serenity]

Oh you guys mean like the European peacekeeping force in Kososvo? The one in Afghanistan (ISAF), the one in Beirut? So affective....at sitting on their bases with their heads up their asses.

[mattp]

Lets not get too cocksure there, Serenity. I'm not clear that we were all that effective in Beirut either, and then there's Somalia, and then Darfur where we've sat on our thumbs and done nothing. Yes, we probably have a stronger military force than the Europeans (some say even this may be questionable at present though I think they are probably a tad alarmist) but peacekeeping is a different job.

 

I somewhat agree with your ideas about North Korea and Iran, but I'm not sure anybody is justified in holding such disdain for the military establishment in Europe. Even if they are less effective than ours at invading countries and blowing things up, at least they have not been the destabilizing force that we have.

 

You may blame all our "failures" on our politics, but it is our politicians who have voted steadily to build the military that we have amassed over the years since WW2, and any assesment of the U.S. Military in an overall sense as in how do we impact the world or how prepared to defend our interests are we must take into account our political landscape.

[Serenity]

Hey Matt, what's up man?

 

I'm basing my guestimates on my day-to-day face-to-face on-the-boots-on-the-ground dealings with NATO. There are some good troops in NATO, in particular the eastern Europeans (Soviet Union would have crushed western Europe), but the majority are on a little vacation away from home.