President Bush's New Plan for Iraq

[monsoon]

..... seriously interested in stabilizing Iraq; ..

[nowensone]

Every generation likes to think they are dealing with new problems to justify war when the reality of the situation is they are not.

[monsoon]

Not trying to turn this into a religious discussion, but the fact is that some cultures and religions simply play well with one another better than others, and Iran is never really going to be "friendly" with the US until it find's a more tolerant govt. And you could say the same about the US, luckily we will soon get rid of the more extreme elements of ours.

[Gusterfell]

^ I strongly disagree with the notion that Iran has never acted against the USA, but from the looks of things we are drawing our information from different sources and arguing about it will probably go nowhere.

[nowensone]

Sounds as if you are first arguing that we can't have good relations with Iran because the people and culture there are incompatable with each other, then turn around and say that it is because its the government. Up until 1979, Iran was one of the USA's biggest allies in the Middle East and one of the very few ones that every President from Truman to Carter made sure to court. It really has nothing to do with the culture.Exactly and the same holds true for Iran/Iraq. Same arguments, same results, just different generations making the same mistake.

[monsoon]

Good point, I'd try to separate the two further but at some point you reach a mid-point where they are interlinked/interconnected. And since I only have second hand knowledge of the Iranian people it is all academic. ....

[Justadude]

The article I linked above is about a US general in Iraq stating that Iran is cooperating to cut violence in Iraq. What source is more reliable than the people in the field? If your sources are portraying Iran as a belligerent aggressor that wants nothing more than to undermine the US for some ethereal ideological reason, then these sources sound like propaganda to me. The world is not that simple.

[monsoon]

It's not hard to connect the dots here: Iran has a history of supporting violent anti-Israeli groups. Violent anti-Israeli groups have a hard time functioning when the USA is sitting in their backyard.

[Charlotte_native]

Anyway, I agree that it is political reasons wrapped in the guise of religion, however, religion is little seperated from politics IMO, in the sense that both are tools for exploitation more than they are codes for living one's life. I am supportive of one's religious views, what ever they might be, as long as they do not become proselytization, which is usually an act of ego and/or manipulation. But having a religious government can never be a good thing, no matter how benevolent, as it is by nature exclusive and opinionated, or else it would by it's own volition cease to be a religious government.

[Charlotte_native]

I once had several good friends that are Iranian that live in the United States. They escaped here when the Shah was disposed and because they were a part of that government were afraid of repercussions. One of my friends knows of many other ex-pats living here in the USA. They are all middle class, and have the same values and aspirations as most Americans and tell me their relatives an friends in Iran are the same. And while the ones here are very critical of the Iranian government, they are also very very critical of the Reagan/Bush/Bush administration's attempts to demonize that country for political purposes. Unfortunately too many American's have bought that story lock stock and barrel and associate Iranians with the Arabs that bombed 9-11. Never mind that Iranians are not Arabs and they practice a different branch of Islam than the radical kind found in Saudia Arabia where the bombers came from.

If anything people ought to be highly pissed off at our own President and state department for not making this distinction, because it only leads to more war instead of reconciliation, if left to head in it's logical course.

[Charlotte_native]

If we can discuss all this on a freaking internet forum, our political candidates should be capable of discussing it in a Presidential debate. But they will not do that because they aren't interested in anything other than winning election. Both sides are flat-out lying when they say they have a solution to Iraq, because they don't. They have a solution to their political problems, and that's it.

[Justadude]

Well actually the country that is much more active in that arena is Saudi Arabia. Lest we remember the government sponsored telethons to raise money for hammas a few years ago. Using this logic we should be invading that country to overthrow the dictatorship that runs the place. At least in Iran there are elections for public officials and they won't tolerate Wahhabism Islam which does advocate terror. I won't bother to mention which country where most of the 9-11 terrorists came from.

[Charlotte_native]

What I am seeing from American liberals

The American left deserves better than simply becoming a bunch of Anti-Bushes, making the same mistakes and pursuing the same strategy in reverse.

[Justadude]

This sounds like a Fox News sound-bite. I know quite a few self proclaimed conservatives who feel exactly as I do. The Liberal label being applied is sad. This is something I feel strongly about in terms of the path my country is on. So do plenty of people from all sides of the political spectrum. This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. It is far from that simple. There is nothing conservative about invading a soveriegn nation and occupying it. There is nothing liberal about wanting out of this particular war and situation.

[Charlotte_native]

Despite the fact that I have repeatedly attacked Republican policy in this very conversation, I'm supposed to be some kind of Bush-Cheney stooge because I don't demand full immediate withdrawal. Hmmm... see something wrong with this picture? It's the same strategy Republicans used to discredit the anti-war movement in '02, in reverse. Yet another case of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

This conversation is a microcosm of what has happened on the national level: anybody who attempts to take a politically-unaffiliated approach is blasted from both sides. So we end up with two bad options: screw around for 15 years in Iraq and cause a quagmire, or withdraw without a plan and cause a civil war. Any alternative strategy, focused on actual victory, is met with political rhetoric and the conversation immediately shifts into Republican vs. Democrat language because we have no other vocabulary to frame the debate.

[Justadude]

I'm truly sorry if you took anything I wrote as labelling you or implying you were anything at all. My views I've posted are intended to be statements about the same things you have said above.

[nowensone]

I actually agree with both of you. As CN has said, can there really be a plan/solution at all? I've brainstormed on it and haven't come up with much. As badly as I want us out of Iraq, the solution that seems to have the best chance of long term strategic success is sticking in for the long haul, rebuilding infrastructure, not just oil fields, protecting the schools and markets with our soldiers, let the people see we are there to improve their lives, not just secure the oil pipeline back to the US. Show the world we are willing to bear the cost of our mistakes like anyone else. Remove our armed contractors, and arm our soldiers with non-lethal pellets and stunning weapons. We'll continue to get attacked, and progress we make will see setbacks due to sabotage, but we keep at it and spend billions upon billions, head-down toil and work time now. And that is a pretty big flip flop for me on the issue btw, but seems to be the only way to prevent an utter collapse, and we owe them that. Especially since they appear to have asked for it. This solution will cost many more American lives. But this is the price we must pay for being so stupid in invading Iraq in the first place. Actions have consequences whether we like them or not. I also suggest we imprison Bush. Everyone must be held accountable, it will make future presidents think twice and do their f__king homework.

I tend to agree with justadude that the Dem's are missing a great opportunity here by playing politics as usual and trying to get elected on a platform of blaming the war on the Republicans. That is old news now, time to move on. Solution time, not whine about who caused this time.

[monsoon]

I actually agree with both of you. As CN has said, can there really be a plan/solution at all? I've brainstormed on it and haven't come up with much. As badly as I want us out of Iraq, the solution that seems to have the best chance of long term strategic success is sticking in for the long haul, rebuilding infrastructure, not just oil fields, protecting the schools and markets with our soldiers, let the people see we are there to improve their lives, not just secure the oil pipeline back to the US. ....

[Gusterfell]

^Agreed 110%. The notion that the US can unilaterally support rebuilding Iraq while maintaining the military presence required to keep the peace is far more naive and idealistic than the notion of engaging Iraqis and their neighbors, all of whom have an immediate vested interest in the restoration of stability, to take on some the burden of this process.

None of the Democratic candidates except Kucinich have called for an immediate, complete withdrawal from Iraq. Most have also talked about talks with Iraq's neighbors to work out a solution that is acceptable to them. The party's consensus seems to be pretty much what I stated much earlier in this discussion: a gradual withdrawal of military forces coupled with diplomacy between all partied invovled. No one is saying that our only choices are to wash our hands of the problem or commit to an indefinite military occupation.

To those who are faulting the Democrats for not having an ideal solution to the Iraq quagmire, shouldn't the burden of finding such a solution fall on those who caused the problem? The simple fact is that we are in a quagmire. There is no good solution. We need to stop thinking in terms of victory or defeat and start thinking about how best to remediate the damage already done to both American and Iraqi intrests.

[nowensone]

^ I don't fault them for not having an ideal solution, after all I'm not sure there is one, but I wish they'd stop the blame war as a campaign act, this is simply a diversion tactic. They should prove that they don't play the same kinds of games as the Republicans if they are going to accuse the opposition of such behavior.

I was going to comment on the multilateral solution earlier but did not quite know how to word it, but to borrow your language I think it is equally naive to assume that Iraq's neighbors are going to put much effort into the plan and/or be able to work together with each other and the US in doing so. They may have individual vested interests in doing so, but taken together these interests will work at cross purposes. Case in point Turkey -> the Kurds - we nearly had a scrap with Turkey recently, and that won't be the last of it.

I agree with the outrageous expense of going this alone (and hope that we do not have to completely go it alone), but again, this is a problem of our own creation, and the world expects us to shoulder most of the costs of the cleanup - it is after all our mess. We may be hurting future generations with the cost of this, but I don't see that there is any other way, we have made a mistake and now it is time to pay. If we pull out too soon and Iraq or the region collapses then we will be amplifying and perpetuating the very negative image we have now, perhaps to such a level that we invite attack. We have a strategic opportunity here that will cost us heavily but may be the only option we really have.

[Charlotte_native]

My greatest frustration is with the Democrats, simply because they have such a great opportunity to set us back on the right course, yet I see the window closing already. The Republican Party sold its soul to neoconservative interests over a decade ago, so I'm not surprised to see the direction they're headed (which, IMO, is probably going to lead to the formation of a new conservative party sometime in the next few cycles). But the Democrats truly have the high ground in this election, so I'm really disappointed to see them pulling the same routine that cost them in '04 -- play it safe, don't do anything too bold, emphasize their opposition to the right but don't introduce anything controversial that could be criticized. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the war debate, where there's a clear negative consequence to withdrawal yet nobody is bold enough to stand up and state it -- pretty much the same thing happened in '02 when only Kucinich stood up against the invasion, and even today continues to be marginalized as a radical.

The country desperately needs a left-leaning political leader who's willing to stick his (or her) neck out and offer a politically and militarily realistic plan for getting us out of Iraq. Not even a solution -- just a plan. If that doesn't happen, this election is going to come down to the same pro-war/anti-war divide that occurred in '04, which was an unproductive debate to say the least.

[Charlotte_native]

None of the Democratic candidates except Kucinich have called for an immediate, complete withdrawal from Iraq. Most have also talked about talks with Iraq's neighbors to work out a solution that is acceptable to them. The party's consensus seems to be pretty much what I stated much earlier in this discussion: a gradual withdrawal of military forces coupled with diplomacy between all partied invovled. No one is saying that our only choices are to wash our hands of the problem or commit to an indefinite military occupation.

[nowensone]

The administration's rigidity is definitely perplexing and disturbing, and Bush's "policy" of walking out of any room that Ahmadinejad walks into is so childish and unpresidential that it hurts my brain. The guy is a walking clown show. I think that Ahmadinejad's diplomatic invitations are probably disingenious, but Bush should absolutely be accepting them if for no other reason that political prudence - he could at least say he tried, and reveal the falseness of the invitation if it is false. Perhaps even embarass Ahmadinejad into real diplomacy. There's a long list of good reasons to do so, besides the obvious (opening legitimate diplomatic channels, enlisting their aid, etc.).

[Justadude]

^ I agree. As I've made pretty clear in my previous comments, I'm no fan of Iran's current government (though I like Iranian culture and history). But it is beneath the dignity of our elected officials to turn international politics into a middle-school-style social exclusion contest. It's hard for our positions on Middle Eastern issues to be taken seriously if we refuse to even be physically present with Iranian diplomats.

Regarding contractors: I hope we take away a hard-earned lesson from this whole Blackwater situation. Contractors (mercenaries) are not directly accountable to our military, no matter what the White House PR staff might say, so they don't belong in a war zone. One of the biggest and most egregious military blunders we have ever made was trying to reduce the political cost of the war by outsourcing our military ops. If Bush didn't have the political capital to send enough troops to win the war, he had no business advocating for aggressive intervention in the first place.

Also, let's bear in mind that the government has really taken advantage of many of these contractors. If you flip through trade magazines for blue-collar industries, especially truck driving and mechanical, you see advertisements promising six-figure incomes "simply" for driving a truck around Iraq. That's a great-sounding deal for someone who's recently been laid off or fallen on hard times, unless of course they die without so much as an obituary so that our government doesn't have to reveal the true cost of the war. This is another situation where a long, hard look needs to be taken at the ethics of the Bush administration.

[Gusterfell]

^I agree completely.

given the Bush administration's insistence on demonising Iran, it can't be too happy about the latest National Intelligence Estimate, which finds that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago, and that it has been on hold ever since.