"This war is lost" - no it's not! - question for war supporters

[Josem]

The argument over whether or not the war is "lost" is irrelevant. Similarly, the argument over whether it was "legal" or not is irrelvant.

The question of significance is (broadly) what to do now: Withdraw, maintain or "surge."



Clearly, maintaining the old strategy is not a path to victory. I can't imagine anyone arguing in favour of this.

Clearly, withdrawing Coalition troops would unleash an almighty blood bath.

Clearly, therefore, a new strategy, with new troops and a new commander, is the only alternative remaining.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Now what's your proposed solution?

Partition. From my first post: "We need to aggressively pursue a partition of the country with Iran and Saudi Arabia publicly playing the roles of sponsors they play covertly now."

Despite the current tension with Turkey, Iraqi Kurdistan has been remarkably stable since the end of the gulf war. An independent Iraqi Kurdistan may be a lot to work out, but it makes sense.

So, how do you partition the rest of Iraq, given that Iraqi shiites and sunnis are reprisaling the ever-living crap out of each other? I don't know, but it doesn't work unless you get Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria to the table to act as guarantors of their co-religionist Iraqi populations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somehow I doubt that the guarantor idea, even if implemented, would be effective in stopping the violence and reprisals.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
A treaty is EXACTLY a sovereign signing away its rights to use military force under explicit conditions. Seriously though, I applaud your efforts.

[/ QUOTE ]
<Sigh> Here is a definition so the next time you speak of treaties you can understand what the word means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treaty

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument over whether or not the war is "lost" is irrelevant. Similarly, the argument over whether it was "legal" or not is irrelvant.

The question of significance is (broadly) what to do now: Withdraw, maintain or "surge."



Clearly, maintaining the old strategy is not a path to victory. I can't imagine anyone arguing in favour of this.

Clearly, withdrawing Coalition troops would unleash an almighty blood bath.

Clearly, therefore, a new strategy, with new troops and a new commander, is the only alternative remaining.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way to know if an alternative arrived at by process of elimination will work or not.

Maybe NO contrived solution will work.

Maybe the only thing that will work (eventually) is allowing the Sunnis and Shiites to fight out, to the bitter end, their struggle for regional dominance over the other.

While the Western attempt to find a political solution is morally commendable, it may also prove futile.

If the Sunnis and Shiites really want to fight each other, they'll probably find a way to do it: U.S. or no U.S., Iran or no Iran, Saudi Arabia or no Saudi Arabia.

Time will tell.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't that constitute speaking out against your commander and chief?

[/ QUOTE ]
The military is suppose to be politically neutral. You may have notice many times generals remain seated during standing ovations during portions of the president's speeches. My ex-army buddies tell me a lot of soldiers got pissed at Harry Reid's comments. Many of them believe this gives aid-and-comfort to the enemy. But they keep their mouth shut. Today I posted a link of a marine criticizing Harry Reid. This soldier will be called on the carpet....

What I was referring to was first hand troop assessments on the situation are very valubale and are the best measure of what is working and what is not working. Hillary going to the green zone for a quickie in-and-out trip does not make her an expert. Shawn Hannity's trip to Iraq he took a camera and had 20 soldiers milling around him giving him their opinions on the situation in Iraq. I found it fascinating.... In some parts of Iraq, things are coming along nicely, even in some Sunni areas. In Baghdad, the insurgents are playing to the cameras and stepping up the bombings.....

Since 80% of the troops supported Bush in the last election (some polls only said 75%), I think this speaks volumes about the optimism troops have towards the plan eventually turning the corner. Bush has botched post-war Iraq. But leaving now is not wise.... We can not let Al Qaeda establish a base in Iraq. Nor let Iran turn Iraq into another Lebanon....

[slickss]

Off Topic: Do not use "troop" when you actually mean "soldier". A troop is a group of soldiers.

[ikestoys]

[ QUOTE ]
Off Topic: Do not use "troop" when you actually mean "soldier". A troop is a group of soldiers.

[/ QUOTE ]

ty PC police

[Huh?]

The whole fiasco seems like the end of War Games where the machine is playing tic tac toe against itself.

Iraq is doomed especially given Bush is currently the commander in chief and a god awful leader with no clue what to do and the lefties in the democratic party seem to have taken hold of the party with their "lets just leave in 8 days" plan.

[LBK]

Anyone not of the opinion this war is lost is lost themselves. And certainly steeped in denial in naivity. Bush had done more damage in 6 years than we had done in hundreds previous to that. In short, he has set us back decades. How that doesn't infuriate some of you Bush supporers boggles my mind. You can't even stick behind conservatism as your excuse for supporting him. He spends more than the most liberal president ever has. Truly sickens me.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
So why are we in Iraq, one of the most secular nations in the middle east?

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL...this is like saying Ted Bundy is the most rational of all serial killers. LOL! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]