Democratic "strategy" for Iraq?

[nebula]

And that's what bothers me most about this proposal.

Not only is it defeatist, but it endangers our troops even more. I see no morality in turning our troops into pawns this way.

[forrestkc]

I am quite sure you have never been over there. My dad was there in 91 and again 10 years later after we deposed Saddam. There is a world of difference. Perhaps we should ask all the widows and fatherless children and orphans, and the women who can now walk around with relative freedom if we achieved a measure of victory.

It's pretty easy to parrot comments you hear others making when you have no experience in reality.

Marnie, because of the Civil War there today, the annualized murder rate in Iraq is now three times what it was even under Saddam. Every week in Iraq, hundreds of widows and orphans are being created.

[Axxman]

I am quite sure you have never been over there. My dad was there in 91 and again 10 years later after we deposed Saddam. There is a world of difference. Perhaps we should ask all the widows and fatherless children and orphans, and the women who can now walk around with relative freedom if we achieved a measure of victory.

It's pretty easy to parrot comments you hear others making when you have no experience in reality.

Marnie, because of the Civil War there today, the annualized murder rate in Iraq is now three times what it was even under Saddam. Every week in Iraq, hundreds of widows and orphans are being created.

You can't throw out numbers of a three year war and compare them to the length of Saddams reign. If the death rate is higher than Saddams over a 20 year period then you have a point...but we both know that is highly unlikely. You just use sensationalistic imagery to make your point rather than engage in truthful dialog.

Secondly, Iraq isn't in a Civil War. Most of the violence in Iraq is STILL directed at coalition forces. However, some of the violence is internal, and it should be. What Iraq is going through is a violent expulsion. The Sunni's who are greatly outnumbered in Iraq are trying desperately to find a foothold in Iraq, but because of there past abuses of power under Saddam, the rest of Iraq doesn't trust them or want them. At worst, you have sectarian strife. The Sunni's are not powerful enough, nor do they have the numbers to conduct a "civil war." Again, this is just another example of sensationalized imagery put out by the media. Problem is too many repubs by into it as well due to lack understanding.

[forrestkc]

I am quite sure you have never been over there. My dad was there in 91 and again 10 years later after we deposed Saddam. There is a world of difference. Perhaps we should ask all the widows and fatherless children and orphans, and the women who can now walk around with relative freedom if we achieved a measure of victory.

It's pretty easy to parrot comments you hear others making when you have no experience in reality.

Marnie, because of the Civil War there today, the annualized murder rate in Iraq is now three times what it was even under Saddam. Every week in Iraq, hundreds of widows and orphans are being created.

You can't throw out numbers of a three year war and compare them to the length of Saddams reign. If the death rate is higher than Saddams over a 20 year period then you have a point...but we both know that is highly unlikely. You just use sensationalistic imagery to make your point rather than engage in truthful dialog.

Secondly, Iraq isn't in a Civil War. Most of the violence in Iraq is STILL directed at coalition forces. However, some of the violence is internal, and it should be. What Iraq is going through is a violent expulsion. The Sunni's who are greatly outnumbered in Iraq are trying desperately to find a foothold in Iraq, but because of there past abuses of power under Saddam, the rest of Iraq doesn't trust them or want them. At worst, you have sectarian strife. The Sunni's are not powerful enough, nor do they have the numbers to conduct a "civil war." Again, this is just another example of sensationalized imagery put out by the media. Problem is too many repubs by into it as well due to lack understanding.

Where do you get this figure for most of the violence still being directed at coaltion forces?

[apothanein kerdos]

Actually, most violence ISN'T directed at coalition forces now. Instead, they generally find themselves in the middle of an attack on civilians. This is both good and bad.

It's bad because the militants are targeting civilians in order to win the psychological war.

It's good because it shows they are afraid of US forces...which we could use to our advantage...but instead we're just sitting there, doing nothing.

[RustyAngeL]

Have you ever noticed how the Democrats are always talking about a new direction over in Iraq but none of the never come up with a new solution?

[forrestkc]

Have you ever noticed how the Democrats are always talking about a new direction over in Iraq but none of the never come up with a new solution?

Because you can't polish a turd.

[nebula]

So proving Osama Bin Laden right that the US is a paper tiger, and that terrorism works, is a better alternative?

[forrestkc]

So proving Osama Bin Laden right that the US is a paper tiger, and that terrorism works, is a better alternative?

I don't think you get it. Every single intelligent estimate since our going into Iraq has found that the war in Iraq has been a godsend to radical islam. Bin Laden would love for us to be in Iraq indefinitely, as our presence there only furthers the cause of radical islam, its recruitment effort, and inspires its next generation.

I think the following editorial says it best:

Why is it that a course of action that is regarded as folly in virtually every other comparable endeavor is seen as virtue and wisdom when America wages war?

In poker, do we call a player a "defeatist" who, seeing a losing hand, folds rather than increasing the bet?

No, we recognize that every good poker player knows better than to throw good money after bad.

In business, what do we call an executive who continues to bank fortunes on a losing marketing strategy rather than cut the losses? We call him a bad businessman.

But when the United States gets embroiled in some ill-conceived, ill-executed, losing war -- such as Vietnam a generation ago and Iraq today -- Americans are supposed to see it as sign of weakness, rather than wisdom, to read the handwriting on the wall and act accordingly.

Why is that?

It is supposedly "defeatist" to admit when something has failed. It is condemned as a sign of a lack of manhood to confront reality and cope with it.

If either Vietnam or Iraq had been a matter of national survival for the United States, "never give up" might make sense. But what sense can it make when the arenas of America's ill-fated military ventures are just small parts of a much larger global chessboard in which a whole variety of interests are at stake?

Just as the poker player with a bad hand saves chips for the hands to come, so also a prudent nation, with global responsibilities and interests, will maintain a proper perspective on any given arena of action.

Even if it is granted that such things as "national honor" and "demonstration of will" are factors in a great power's standing in the world, neither of these can be so weighty as to justify exercises in futility.

Can it reasonably be argued that the enemies of the U.S. will be more respectful and afraid of the U.S. if, in the name of national honor, it persists in its folly rather than demonstrating its ability to adjust to realities and maintain strategic perspective?

With President Bush's most recent call for yet another blunder, it is imperative that Americans grasp the real dangers of "defeatism." What we should worry about is not the mind-set that recognizes and adapts to the reality of failure when it is a fait accompli. The defeatism that should worry us is the mind-set that is at war with reality, that loses perspective and that insists on magnifying a defeat into a larger disaster than it needs to be.

Andrew Bard Schmookler is the author of "The Parable of the Tribes." His e-mail address is at his Web site, http://www.NoneSoBlind.org.

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story...sdate=2/14/2007

[nebula]

No, forrest - you don't get what is actually going on in the Mid East and in Europe and in the US (ie. Michigan).

It would be nice if you were right and out leaving Iraq would make the Muslims happy and not want to destroy "the Great Satan" (as they call the US) - but the evidence says otherwise. If you can't comprehend this, then there is nothing more for me to say.