Because of poor and skewered intelligence over 9/11 and WMDs we have gone to war in Iraq - and we went into this one unprepared militarily and without a defined mission.
Winning, of course, is the objective, it always is in war. But how will we define victory?
If Iraq gets a stable, elected, democratic government? If we put down the insurgency?
Will either of those accomplishments bring back the brave warriors we have lost? Will it bring back the innocent Iraqis who have also died for this cause? Will it weaken al Quaeda or stop them from sneaking across our open borders? Will it ease the animosity that we have created?
In other words ... suppose we win.
Whenever we leave, as we have promised to do, can we assure anyone that the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites won't start killing each other again? If they do, are we committed to go back again - and again? Will Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Egypt allow an Islamic democratic government to flourish? I think not.
So even if we win we lose and at a tremendous cost of lives - and billions of dollars.
We have been told that leaving Iraq will embolden the enemy. It may. Being there has already done that and continuing to stay there will do that also. If we are going to embolden the enemy I would rather do it with less loss of lives.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
What a waste of money
To those of you who believe that you are not touched by the war, here is a brief recap.
To start a war you've got to propose a reason. The reason in the case of Iraq was that Iraq had WMDs and poison gas that they were going to use and that America was in immediate danger. This was the same Iraq that tried to inflict damage on the Israelis during the Gulf War with little success.
The Bush administration sold this to gullible Democrats and the public. So we "Shock and Awe" them into submission. Declare "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED".
War over. NO way. Sadaam goes into hiding. After the mission was accomplished the carnage started. We got careless. We took away their arms and ammunition, but left them unguarded. So the Iraqis plot their revenge. We were told we would be welcomed with bouquets, instead we are welcomed with bombs. Because we were in a rush to start this war we sent our troops ill-prepared and with poor armor for their humvees.
We arranged for seemingly democratic elections. They elect a government and everything looks good. War over. NO way.
We make a huge tactical mistake. One of the rules of war is to know your enemy. There is absolutely no reason to get caught in an insurgency, which may turn into a civil war. Our military leaders didn't foresee that. They also should have foreseen that Iraq would become a haven for Syrian and Iranian terrorists, and that both of them would fund the Shiites. On top of that they should have foreseen the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds hatred for each other and the U.S.
The Iraqis have learned American politics. Their government asks for money and when they use it up they ask for more. We are caught in what should have been foreseeable. We are asking the very people we fought against to help us maintain order so that we can rebuild what we destroyed. All of this at a tremendous cost in lives, and broken bodies. Even with a scorecard one can't tell our enemies from our friends, because even our friends are enemies in Iraq. Would anyone in their right minds send more troops to this cause?
How does it affect you? Think of what we could do for our schools, for health insurance, for Medicare, for affordable housing, for New Orleans, and for countless ways to make us really safer with the billions squandered on this fools errand.
To start a war you've got to propose a reason. The reason in the case of Iraq was that Iraq had WMDs and poison gas that they were going to use and that America was in immediate danger. This was the same Iraq that tried to inflict damage on the Israelis during the Gulf War with little success.
The Bush administration sold this to gullible Democrats and the public. So we "Shock and Awe" them into submission. Declare "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED".
War over. NO way. Sadaam goes into hiding. After the mission was accomplished the carnage started. We got careless. We took away their arms and ammunition, but left them unguarded. So the Iraqis plot their revenge. We were told we would be welcomed with bouquets, instead we are welcomed with bombs. Because we were in a rush to start this war we sent our troops ill-prepared and with poor armor for their humvees.
We arranged for seemingly democratic elections. They elect a government and everything looks good. War over. NO way.
We make a huge tactical mistake. One of the rules of war is to know your enemy. There is absolutely no reason to get caught in an insurgency, which may turn into a civil war. Our military leaders didn't foresee that. They also should have foreseen that Iraq would become a haven for Syrian and Iranian terrorists, and that both of them would fund the Shiites. On top of that they should have foreseen the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds hatred for each other and the U.S.
The Iraqis have learned American politics. Their government asks for money and when they use it up they ask for more. We are caught in what should have been foreseeable. We are asking the very people we fought against to help us maintain order so that we can rebuild what we destroyed. All of this at a tremendous cost in lives, and broken bodies. Even with a scorecard one can't tell our enemies from our friends, because even our friends are enemies in Iraq. Would anyone in their right minds send more troops to this cause?
How does it affect you? Think of what we could do for our schools, for health insurance, for Medicare, for affordable housing, for New Orleans, and for countless ways to make us really safer with the billions squandered on this fools errand.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Bush, Lieberman and Iraq
The "Great Decider" decided that the Saudis who were backed by the Taliban and did the 9/11 damage were really Iraqis.Then he decided that the people who told him there was no danger from Iraq from WMDs were lying to him. Now he has decided that we need more troops in Iraq so that we can win this war, and we cannot allow the enemy to declare a victory. He sold this nonsense to Joseph Lieberman, who has bought into the concept of winning the war.
Neither one has been able to convince me what winning the war means. Does it mean having an Iraqi government that we like and the Iraqi people hate, or having an Iraqi government that hates us and the Iraqi people like? The other question is who is our enemy? Is it Al Qaeda or the Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds?
They also claim that retreat is not an option. Every military book I read considers it a viable option. In any case we will have to leave Iraq sometime. To some, even after ten years, it will look like a retreat. We have left soldiers there who will never come home.
To be a "Great Decider" one does not necessarily have to make great decisions. I would settle for good decisions.
The record speaks for itself.
Neither one has been able to convince me what winning the war means. Does it mean having an Iraqi government that we like and the Iraqi people hate, or having an Iraqi government that hates us and the Iraqi people like? The other question is who is our enemy? Is it Al Qaeda or the Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds?
They also claim that retreat is not an option. Every military book I read considers it a viable option. In any case we will have to leave Iraq sometime. To some, even after ten years, it will look like a retreat. We have left soldiers there who will never come home.
To be a "Great Decider" one does not necessarily have to make great decisions. I would settle for good decisions.
The record speaks for itself.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
The president's 'new' 'plan'
To those of you who bought into the President's new plan, I think you ought to understand that it is premised on a very risky assumption.
We have been told that our success in this war depends on making Iraq safe, and the only way to do this is to send in more troops to take care of the Sunni militia and the Mahdi army. But the insurgency must be quelled by the Iraq army. What, however, happens if Maliki decides he would rather not try that? It becomes a failure.
What happens if he decides to try it, and the Mahdi army refuses to give up their arms, and fights back. We then have a family squabble that has become the civil war we are trying to avoid. That too is a failure.
Sometimes when you intervene in a family squabble, the participants make up and hate the interventionist.
Here is what I believe the Democrats in charge should do. If they honestly believe their own rhetoric then they cannot in all sincerity vote the funds for this "surge." They should spend the next week or two taking their case to the public. If they have a good case, and I believe they do, they can persuade the public that this is the sensible path.
If, as we are now told, that regime change was our objective - not the WMDs - then we have already achieved our goal. The Democrats may believe that opposing escalation is too risky politically, but being honest about one's objectives is very important. It shows the world true resolve. Taking a small loss is always a better choice than taking a disaster.
We owe it to our soldiers, sailors, air force, marines and even civilians who gave of themselves, the satisfaction that they did not do it in vain. The best way to do that is to keep their friends from also making the same sacrifice.
We have been told that our success in this war depends on making Iraq safe, and the only way to do this is to send in more troops to take care of the Sunni militia and the Mahdi army. But the insurgency must be quelled by the Iraq army. What, however, happens if Maliki decides he would rather not try that? It becomes a failure.
What happens if he decides to try it, and the Mahdi army refuses to give up their arms, and fights back. We then have a family squabble that has become the civil war we are trying to avoid. That too is a failure.
Sometimes when you intervene in a family squabble, the participants make up and hate the interventionist.
Here is what I believe the Democrats in charge should do. If they honestly believe their own rhetoric then they cannot in all sincerity vote the funds for this "surge." They should spend the next week or two taking their case to the public. If they have a good case, and I believe they do, they can persuade the public that this is the sensible path.
If, as we are now told, that regime change was our objective - not the WMDs - then we have already achieved our goal. The Democrats may believe that opposing escalation is too risky politically, but being honest about one's objectives is very important. It shows the world true resolve. Taking a small loss is always a better choice than taking a disaster.
We owe it to our soldiers, sailors, air force, marines and even civilians who gave of themselves, the satisfaction that they did not do it in vain. The best way to do that is to keep their friends from also making the same sacrifice.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Strategy? What strategy?
To those of you who watched Sen. Lindsay Graham espouse the president's new strategy in Iraq, on Meet the Press, please remember that this was the same person who thought impeaching President Clinton was more important than the problem in Kosovo.
The "new" Iraq strategy? We have to send more troops to win the war, because we cannot afford to lose.
This, however, is atypical of the Republican strategy in other areas: We cannot pour more dollars into school aid unless we make the schools more accountable. We cannot afford to pour more dollars in a losing war on drugs. We cannot afford to spend more dollars on the losing war on poverty. We cannot afford to spend more money on Medicaid, Medicare, and Health care for our citizens.
We must, though, spend more money and invest more troops in the losing war in Iraq, because we cannot admit we are losing.
The "new" Iraq strategy? We have to send more troops to win the war, because we cannot afford to lose.
This, however, is atypical of the Republican strategy in other areas: We cannot pour more dollars into school aid unless we make the schools more accountable. We cannot afford to pour more dollars in a losing war on drugs. We cannot afford to spend more dollars on the losing war on poverty. We cannot afford to spend more money on Medicaid, Medicare, and Health care for our citizens.
We must, though, spend more money and invest more troops in the losing war in Iraq, because we cannot admit we are losing.
Monday, January 1, 2007
Bush Plays Texas Hold 'Em
The president sits down at the card table with Joe Democrat, Ahmad Kurd, Ali Sunni and Sam Maliki. He is dealt a ten of diamonds and a king of diamonds. Joe is dealt a nine of spades and jack of spades. Ahmad is dealt a king of hearts and king of clubs. Ali is dealt a queen of hearts and a queen of clubs. Sam is dealt an ace of clubs and an ace of hearts.
The president bets $20,000 and Joe sees him. Ahmad raises him $40,000 and Ali Raises Ahmad $40,000. Sam knows he has the best hand but he wants to set a trap so he just sees the raise. The president, not wishing to cut and run, sees Ali and so does Ahmad.
The dealer then opens a nine of diamonds, a seven of hearts and an ace of diamonds. This gives the president four diamonds and a heart, Joe a pair of nines, Ahmad a pair of Kings, Ali a pair of queens and Sam three aces. The president bets $50,000, Joe sees him, Ahmad and Ali also sees him, but Sam Raises him $100,000. They all see the bet but Joe.
The dealer then turns over a queen of diamonds. This gives the President a flush, Ahmad a pair of kings, Ali three queens and Sam three aces.
The president bets $100,000. Ahmad folds. Ali sees and so does Sam thinking the President may have a flush.
The last card is an ace of spades. The president still has his flush, Ali has a full house and Sam has four aces.
The President bets $100,000. Ali raises him $100,000 and Sam goes all in. The president already has so much invested he wants to stay the course so he sees Sam as does Ali.
Sam takes the big pot.
As Kenny Rogers once sang,"You've got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them." When you are playing cards or fighting a war the same strategy prevails.
The president bets $20,000 and Joe sees him. Ahmad raises him $40,000 and Ali Raises Ahmad $40,000. Sam knows he has the best hand but he wants to set a trap so he just sees the raise. The president, not wishing to cut and run, sees Ali and so does Ahmad.
The dealer then opens a nine of diamonds, a seven of hearts and an ace of diamonds. This gives the president four diamonds and a heart, Joe a pair of nines, Ahmad a pair of Kings, Ali a pair of queens and Sam three aces. The president bets $50,000, Joe sees him, Ahmad and Ali also sees him, but Sam Raises him $100,000. They all see the bet but Joe.
The dealer then turns over a queen of diamonds. This gives the President a flush, Ahmad a pair of kings, Ali three queens and Sam three aces.
The president bets $100,000. Ahmad folds. Ali sees and so does Sam thinking the President may have a flush.
The last card is an ace of spades. The president still has his flush, Ali has a full house and Sam has four aces.
The President bets $100,000. Ali raises him $100,000 and Sam goes all in. The president already has so much invested he wants to stay the course so he sees Sam as does Ali.
Sam takes the big pot.
As Kenny Rogers once sang,"You've got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them." When you are playing cards or fighting a war the same strategy prevails.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
