"A War We Just Might Win"

[McFarland]

I can't remember who it was exactly, but i remember someone denouncing public TV. They said it was all government run. Well, on our public TV staion, most of the news is balanced. and when the good things in Iraq happen, it gets reported. I saw this on there even. And they also show good shows that are scientific, and balanced to show both sides. Nothing government controlled I can see. This is good, we are making progress now. I don't really support the war entirely, but I now understand why we went and that it isn't all bad like is reported in the mainstream news. I quit watching "main stream news" years ago, it has been left or right sided for some time now. It really isn't news anymore, it's worse on celebrity gossip than the "National Inquier" you see depicted in old cartoons. It is junk. "Lame stream media" really describes it well. But, I'm glad we are actually getting something done in Iraq.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Who was the recent democrat politician who is being quoted all over now basically saying "success in Iraq is bad news for us” (the democrats)?

link

View From the Front

Democratic House Whip James Clyburn says a positive report from Iraq forces commander General David Petraeus to Congress in September would be — "a real problem for us."

Clyburn tells The Washington Post that an upbeat assessment of the war from Petraeus would likely split House Democrats — making their goal of forcing a timetable to end the war impossible. Clyburn says Petraeus' words will carry significant weight among the 47 Blue Dog Caucus members — and without their support — a timetable is probably out of reach.

Clyburn is advising other Democratic leaders to wait until Petraeus' report before making their next move in their battle with the president over the future of U.S. troops in the region.

In other words, don't keep declaring defeat, we might (Argh) win

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by bj229r
link



In other words, don't keep declaring defeat, we might (Argh) win

pretty sad to be basing you political future on the US losing a war. You would have thought he would be smart enough to lie about it at least.

[FrodeMk3]

AK, this seems to be an old article, but it pretty much shows why we kept troops in Germany since the end of WWII, and why we still maintain a few:

http://www.iht.com/articles/1991/11/07/nato.php

Japan's a handy base, too, as was proven in Korea, Vietnam, and as a port for the Pac. fleet.

John, the current Iraqi gov't. IS made up of representatives' that won they're seats in an election. The same kind of government the Founding Fathers' of our own country wanted, when they took up arms' against King George. There is, However, one thing about the whole mess over there that perplex's lot's of people, a question that many don't ask.

When the Iraqi army was defeated in 1991, after Desert Storm, why didn't the Iraqi's rise up against Saddam Hussein at that time, overthrow him and hang him themselves, and  install this sort of govt. then????
Iraq's military was crushed, or didn't owe enough allegance to Saddam to fight Coalition forces to the death...Why didn't they take advantage of it?
We should not have had to come back over a decade later and do the job for them, if they wanted it that badly.

Was it because they weren't as bothered by Saddam as we think?

If anyone has any info to shed light on this question, please, any input's appreciated. This has been kind of a black-hole as far as any Mid-east political discussion's that I've seen in alot of places.

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by john9001
the govt of Iraq was elected by Iraqis.

????

Yeah, but Iraq's "jiffy-pop" Constitution was a hurried mess pushed through by a Interim Government, led by U.S. chosen members, all the while being harranged by a United States Congress in a hurry to roll out said Constitution and the elections.

Result: a weak, ineffective, central Iraqi government composed of compromise and power plays with numerous factions and rife with corruption.

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
When the Iraqi army was defeated in 1991, after Desert Storm, why didn't the Iraqi's rise up against Saddam Hussein at that time, overthrow him and hang him themselves, and  install this sort of govt. then????
Iraq's military was crushed, or didn't owe enough allegance to Saddam to fight Coalition forces to the death...Why didn't they take advantage of it?
We should not have had to come back over a decade later and do the job for them, if they wanted it that badly.

Was it because they weren't as bothered by Saddam as we think?

If anyone has any info to shed light on this question, please, any input's appreciated. This has been kind of a black-hole as far as any Mid-east political discussion's that I've seen in alot of places.

Actually they DID rise up.  General Schwartzkopf had granted Iraq use of it's Soviet built military helicopter forces in the peace talks after the cease fire.  Saddam used those helicopters to crush the uprisings among the Shiaa and Kurds.  If the United States really wanted Saddam toppled from within, that concession was then a huge blunder on the part of the General, but in fairness to him, he had little to NO input from either the Administration nor the State Department in those peace talks.   Wasn't his job to run peace talks, but it fell on him due to Disneyland on the Potomac dropping the ball.  

Also, there was a lot of thought toward not wanting to neuter Iraq completely, as they were seen as a counter-point to Iran.  If we took out Iraq in 1991/1992.... then Iran would have been the sole big boy on the block in the region.  With Iraq still a force to contend with, the hopes were to contain Iran through them.

[FrodeMk3]

Ty for the post, Ted

Though, most still can't understand the sudden change of strategy. If we'd left Saddam in power, He would have been handier than what they have now, it seems-He was there, and stood on his own, while now we have a substantial portion of our own armed forces tied up holding down Iraq itself, unavailable for other crises'(Darfur, for example.)

[FrodeMk3]

Result: a weak, ineffective, central Iraqi government composed of compromise and power plays with numerous factions and rife with corruption.

Ala South Vietnam?

[Hazzer]

Whistling in the Dark springs to mind.

  PPl  on here should read up on British colonial History in the middle East 1915 to 1949.Then at least you would have some Idea why your losing.

[john9001]

do not compare failed British colonialism with the United States defeating a dictator and trying to set up a democracy.  

and who said we are losing?

[Hazzer]

your're in a War you can't win.Why?I refer you again to the failed British colonialism above.

    When you've finished pass it on to Bush.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
AK, this seems to be an old article, but it pretty much shows why we kept troops in Germany since the end of WWII, and why we still maintain a few:

http://www.iht.com/articles/1991/11/07/nato.php

Japan's a handy base, too, as was proven in Korea, Vietnam, and as a port for the Pac. fleet.

I lived in Japan for 6 years and Korea for 1. I do know why the US military is there, to maintain presence and theforefore stability/influence in that region. Much the same reason we'll likely keep troops in the middle east for a long time.

[Shifty]

Originally posted by Hazzer
your're in a War you can't win.Why?I refer you again to the failed British colonialism above.

    When you've finished pass it on to Bush.

 After we give it to GW, maybe we should give it to the muslims that are quite successfully colonizing the UK.

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Though, most still can't understand the sudden change of strategy. If we'd left Saddam in power, He would have been handier than what they have now, it seems-He was there, and stood on his own, while now we have a substantial portion of our own armed forces tied up holding down Iraq itself, unavailable for other crises'(Darfur, for example.)

Well, there is the publicly given strategy and and the internal reasons for Iraq in the first place.  I do believe that going into Iraq had a lot more to do with other interests than WMD's or any tenuous link to fundamentalists terrorists on the part of Saddam's secular hedonistic government.....

Look at a map.  Central to the Middle East region.  Border with Allied Turkey.  Borders with problem children Iran and Syria.  Oil rich.  Resource rich.  Has several water sources (more than most of the region has access to).  Access to the sea.   Arable land. A large segment of the population being well educated. A (then) largely metropolitan and secular society.  

They saw the Middle East's version of South Korea. A shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East.  A bastion of American might and permanent American bases to project power and influence in the region in the greater war on terror.  The people would welcome us with flowers and candy by getting rid of Saddam and his evil sons......

But the map is not the ground, and they failed to consider, or chose to dismissed as unimportant, the cultural or historic realities in and of Iraq... or of the region as a whole.  They saw what they wanted to see.
They compounded these mistakes with further blunders:

* Not enough troops to begin with to secure the country, lowballing the numbers and counting on using the 400,000 Iraqi forces to help secure the country as justification for low numbers.
* Then Firing those 400,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen of the Iraq forces who they went to great lengths to subvert to remain on the sidelines during the invasion.  Those who knew where the munitions were buried.  Those who eventually became the core of the Insurgency and of many organized crime gangs operating in Iraq.  
* Failing to secure all those munitions dumps around Iraq whose stores were turned against coalition forces.
* Rushing Iraq through a quickie Constitution to come up with the mess of a government they have now all in the name of quick government and quick elections. "lookit what we did!" back home.  
* Failing all along to recognize, admit to, and adjust to mistakes made these past five years.
* Failing to reconstruct basic utilities, human services, and security to Iraq after five years.  The shortsightedness and stubborn arrogance has been staggering at times.

[crockett]

Originally posted by Sabre
I'd heard about this article, but hadn't read it until now.  Thanks for the link.  What is sad is my firm belief that the mainstream news sources will all but ignore this.  Back in WWII, any good news (defined as showing progress towards victory) was hailed by the press, with set backs being de-emphasized.  Now it is just the opposite.  Or perhaps what has changed is the left's (and their willing accomplices) definition of good news (redefined as anything that casts dispersions on the Administration and leads to disgrace and defeat in Iraq/Afganistan).

Not so long ago, when the Iraqi elections were held and a consititution voted on and adopted, prominet democrat Harry Reid was saying that political progress was useless unless the security situation improved.  This, he said was impossible because the President didn't send enough troops into Iraq to insure security.  Then the President announces a troop increase to achieve that security, which Reid instantly opposes.  Now that the surge (along with evolving tactics) are resulting in an improving security situation, Harry Reid over the weekend said that improving security was useless unless the political situation improves. Like the democrats' position on the economy, any improvement will instantly be countered with some reason why that improvement is irrelevant.  "Growth is through the roof" is countered with, "The gap between rich and poor is growing"; "Unemployment is at an all-time low" is replied to with "But their not good jobs"; "Wages and earings are up" envokes "but we're producing too much CO2!"  And of course, "US and Iraqi casualties are down" is countered with "but we're producing too much CO2!!!"  (Hey, the left doesn't have to make sense, just noise:huh )

You ever think it might be because the media was "used" by this admin as part of the lie to get us into the war in the first place? Had this admistration been  truthful from the start, maybe they would hold better light in the mainstream media. Much less with the American people and the world.

You lie then you get treated as a lier.