We have victory in Iraq due to our brave military members, the brave Iraqi’s who stood and fought for their country, and President Bush. But where is the MSM on this great day?
Iraqi government TV has been playing patriotic music to celebrate the U.S. military withdrawal from cities, towns and villages across the country, officially set to be completed by Tuesday June 30th.
Iraqi military vehicles were also covered with flowers to celebrate the event, and military parades, complete with band music, were organized in Diyala and Diwania provinces.
The government declared a “Day of National Sovereignty” to mark the event, and has invited ordinary citizens to join evening celebrations at Baghdad’s Zawra Park for a festival of music and poetry.
Interior Minister Jawad Boulani told journalists the U.S. withdrawal is almost complete and Iraqi forces are capable of maintaining order across the country.
He says he believes Iraq’s security situation is under control. “I do not think we need to declare a curfew,” he insisted.
Why, their hiding because they said this day would never come. The left and the MSM (synonymous really) believed Bush would ruin everything he touches and now that they have been proven wrong they just ignore it or believe Obama fixed it, by doing the same thing as Bush of course, but why ruin a fantasy. They tell us all that Obama inherited this recession, its not his fault while at the same time trying to sell the case that he did not inherit the Bush victory in Iraq….it’s all him baby…..sigh.
Anyways, congrats to the Iraqi’s for proving that human beings, no matter where they live, DO want to live in freedom.
This has to be good news for everyone. No one wants large numbers of US troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely. The problem comes when the US does finally pull out – if Al-Qaeda/Iraqi insurgents step up their attacks and destablise the Iraqi government. Would the US return? Let’s hope that doesn’t problem doesn’t arise and Iraq becomes a fully stable, independent and democratic country.
@ Barleymash
I will let Aye and Mata kick your butt on this point. I personally don’t care about the WMD issue. I know there are other ex-military people that post here and some non-military that are war buffs/historians. Going into Iraq was one of the single most brilliant strategic moves in military history. Going into Afghanistan only would have produced way more U.S. military casualties than going into Iraq produced. Every idiot in search of 77 virgins would have showed up and been in much more defensible positions. Fighting in Iraq brough the nut cases to us in an arena would could handle much easier.
Now, go drink some kool-aid and read Catcher in the Rye again.
“Going into Iraq was one of the single most brilliant strategic moves in military history.”
That’s one of the most astonishing pieces of prose I’ve ever read. Even better than Catcher in the Rye (which sucked, BTW). What did we accomplish? We know the cost. But what did we gain? We killed hundreds of thousands of people, enabled Iran to become the most powerful force in the region (with increased nuclear capacity, no less), wiped out trillions in US funds, overstretched our military and nearly bankrupted our VA… for what? This is a serious question. You’re saying it was a brilliant “move” because going into Afghanistan (where the people who attacked us LIVED) would have been more difficult. But we DID go into Afghanistan, and we DID still fail to get the guys who actually attacked us. What did we gain? You say we made a brilliant move and won something. What did we win that was worth the cost? Again, I’m completely stymied here and looking for a serious answer. What’s the prize?
Oh boy, someone just bit off more than he can chew and, I’m going to miss it all. Darn.
You’re right, Catcher in the Rye did suck.
We’re going to have to agree on a few things here for this to work.
1. We were going to kick someone’s ass for 9-11, right?
2. That someone was Al-Q, which at the time was being protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
3. We immediately went into Afghanistan to destroy Al-Q and the Taliban.
4. Fighting a war in Afghanistan is like playing football against the Packers in Green Bay. Ask the Russians.
5. We went to Iraq and most of “enemy combantants” came to Iraq to fight us.
6. In the end, the Iraq war, no matter what you think of it, destroyed Al-Q’s leadership and their war-making capabilities.
7. Yes, we went to Afghanistan and we’re still there. Will be for a very long time. A war in those mountains is going to take a very long time to complete.
As for the people that died, that usually happens in war.
Iran? A 6 flight sortie of F-117′s will reduce their nuclear capabilites overnight. Someone just has to have the nads to make the call.
Now *that*, bar none, is truly one of “the most astonishing pieces of prose” *I’ve* ever read.
*We* killed hundreds of thousands of people? You blame the US military and coalition for suicide bombers? Because I’m damn sure our collateral damage doesn’t even come close to that claim.
Enabled Iran to become the most powerful force in the region? Looked at a map lately? Got a clue how many US troops are sitting on Iran’s border?
Wiped out trillions in US funds? Sorry, that dubious honor belongs to the Eunuch in Chief, accomplished in the short span of six months. In fact, the percentage of military spending to national debt has been halved since the 80s, and welfare spending by Congress – never the Constitutional intent of the Framers – doubles our national security/military spending.
Nearly bankrupted our VA? Makes you wonder why the big Zero is bent on further bankrupting the nation by moving us toward a single payer health care system… they do health care sooooooo well.
Overstretched our military? Funny, the only one I hear complaining is you… not our military personnel who do tour after tour with nary a complaint.
You’re stymied? No surprise there. When you are so devoid of facts and strategic perspective, what else can you be?
So what did we accomplish? Ask the Iraqis. I’m sure they will be happy to tell you they are a free nation and an upcoming Muslim democracy that is no longer an enemy of the US. But I guess a friendlier Iraq, as well as Libya, in relation to our national security means little to you.
“that usually happens in war.”
Interesting. Of course, this wasn’t the Iraqis war. It was our war. Your argument is that we had every right to reduce our casualties in Afghanistan by moving the battlefield to a more practical location, in effect using Iraqi civilians as human shields. I guess you don’t feel any moral compunction over dragging our battle into the schools and homes of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
I’m not sure I’ve ever had a conversation with such a cheerful war crime buff. You guys are fascinating!
BTW, I had to go monitor my burn pile and didn’t finish with you, barley.
In additional to the geographical proximity brillance of a Muslim democracy in the heart of the Caliphate, AND it’s importance as the jewel of the ME with the fresh water and oil reserves… all being kept out of the hands of the global Islamic jihad movements (either directly or by proxy), there is the decline of jihad in the Muslim world.
Some reading for you:
The Bush Legacy
Increasing animosity towards AQ because of Iraq
Islamic World rejecting AQ
More quiet success in the war on jihad
But Saddam was not a jihadist.He wasn’t even particularly religious. Here’s the funny thing with Muslim democracies: they tend to vote in Islamic theocracies. Hamas. Iran. (sure it was rigged, but what are YOU gonna do about it?) Pakistan is voting in Shariah law in more and more of the country. Even proudly secular Turkey is having trouble keeping Islamist factions from controlling the government. So sure, Iraq is a semi-secular democracy today. But all it takes is one charismatic Mullah and we suddenly have another Supreme Leader and Islamic Council to deal with.
Feh. My posts keep getting lost or delayed and retyping on my iPhone is more tedious than Salinger. One quick note before I sign off: Saddam was not a jihadist. He WAS the buttress against the caliphate. Beware of Muslim democracies. They never fail to elect Islamic theocracies. And that’s pretty much a one-way trip. Cases: Iran. Hamas. The rise of Shariah law in Pakistan. Turkey’s struggle today to remain secular. Devout faithful vote to make their faith the law. Islamic democracy is not a safe bet.
Be back later after commute and dinner.
Let’s help you out with your reading problem, barley. No one said Saddam was a jihad warrior. What I said was:
Saddam, as per the Iraqi Perspectives Report IV, was utilizing jihad groups as an unofficial state terror weapon since the early 90s, and up until his desposition. Thus the word “proxy”.
You can find all five volumes available at the FAS site.
Incorrect. Pakistan consistently keeps their militant parties that want to change the nation to Sharia law in a small minority. Additionally, the militant Islamic groups lost even more ground in Iraq’s last election, despite a Sunni turnout as high as 60% in some districts.
So much for that….
@Barleymash
Wasn’t us using civilians as shields. Wasn’t us fighting from schools and mosques. That was your team. As for location? I personally wouldn’t care if we had chosen Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Syria. As far as I’m concerned every one of those countries contributed to 9-11 as much as Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m not a diplomat nor a politician, for me it was a “them” or “us” situation. I won’t apologize to you or any other beta male out there. If D-Day occured in the modern media driven world we live in now, people like you would have screamed bloody murder. And yes, location is vital in any military operation. As for me, I choose the lives of the men and women in our military over appeasing code pinkos.
You should read MacArthur’s autobiography and maybe some Sun Tzu instead of Salinger.
That should also answer your question about my “moral compunction.”
I’m still trying to figure out where he’s getting this “hundreds of thousands” we – the US – killed, Aqua… Even the notorious Iraq Body Count site only has 92,435 – 100,911 “documented civilian deaths” to date.
Of course, since the enemy doesn’t wear uniforms, how do we know if they were civilian or jihad fighters and/or supporters? And, when you read the incidents that comprise those figures, the US cannot be held responsible for roadside bombs, or the mutilated bodies of hospital workers, stabbings, truck bombs, etal.
Which, of course, begs a clarification from barley, after he gets off the mash, as to just how he manages to inflate the numbers he attributes to the US, and not the enemy… or perhaps even just random Iraqi crime?
That aside, let’s take the high number 100,911, and the pesky fact that there are 2294 calendar days from the day OIF commenced on Mar 20, 2003 to today (June 30, 2009). That would be just shy of 44 deaths every single day of our presence in Iraq. If this were the case, and the result of the US military, that news would be cried from the mountaintops everywhere.
Someone’s really operating on less cylinders than usual here… and it’s not me.
@Barleymash:
Fact check Aisle 49.
Fact check Aisle 49 please.
Ummmm…not so much.
Ummmm…no, here’s what he said:
The “slam dunk” comment was clearly in reference to the WMD issue:
Actually, no, he didn’t. See the quote above in addition to the one below:
Tenet says he believed that Saddam had WMD:
Watch CBS Videos Online
It’s amusing to hear people say that Saddam was “secular” or not “particularly religious”.
Especially in light of his personal Quran written in his own blood.
Yep, Saddam was so “secular” that he placed the words “Allahu Akhbar”, in his own handwriting, on the Iraqi flag.
Furthermore Osama’s Islamism is not that much different than Saddam’s Baathism.
More on that here:
It’s a shame that on your very first day here you chose to wander ’round so unprepared.
Perhaps the pummeling you have taken from every direction on this thread will encourage you to be more aware of the subject matter before you dive in over your head again.
@Aqua
Ah so Iraq was just an alloted playing field? Why fight in mountainous region when you pick another country which is flatter and easy to maneuver your tanks around. Now just need an excuse…
…. even if I don’t reach them exactly when I plan to…. in other words, subject to events that happen daily or, as in Iraq, events on the ground.
The notion that your party”s insistence for a firm, drop dead withdrawal date is superior to the original, and now followed plan all along, that we go when the Iraqi’s can secure and govern themselves is pure fantasy.
The Dems wanted to drop dead leave in a “tough love” scenerio. It’s the “Iraqis responsibility” and screw them, they said. That’s YOUR plan.
THE plan is exactly what’s happening. You may try and take credit for it all you want, but it still doesn’t make it true. Why not go back and pull a few statements of your Congressional leadership about their insistance for withdrawal date that proves they were flexibile for ground events, and get back to us? I’m done doing your homework, guy.
And BTW… “cute” does not become you.
You leap to conclusions, or perhaps demonstrate little perspective of military strategy and potential theatres of operation, Gaffa. It’s what I call “the cockroach theory”.
Lest you think my analogy is far fetched… allow me to quote from one pest control site on how to kill cockroaches:
The resemblence is uncanny, yes? It’s why I call them human cockroaches… which, if I remember rightly, some PC lib type took great offense. LOL
Fact is, when you “dry up their food and water supply” (aka their Afghanistan digs), and monitor monitor monitor to stay on their backs, they tend to run to neighboring homes that are friendlier to their presence. Since Iraq had been a revolving door for years to the jihad movements, and Zawahiri had a long standing relationship with Saddam from his EIJ days, Iraq was a very logical first choice.
Pakistan is great for serving as an emergency back door where they could lay low and supervise, but hardly a high profile battle ground for either side. In Pakistan, tribal border villages would harbor them out of fear and reprisal, or by common hatred of the west…. depending on the particular village.
Baghdad is also the historic Caliphate, and the jewel of the ME in natural resources. Much better for fund raising and superior to Pakistan for a home base. But of course they figured the Iraqis… Muslims… would side with them against the evil US.
Then of course, there are those 17 UN resolutions ignored by Saddam, and Clinton’s Iraq Liberation Act in the mid-90s that make regime change a US and Congressional policy… at least in lip service.
Since it is wise to plan your war strategy with locations advantageous to your troops, and assessing where your enemy will retreat, Iraq was a perfect choice. Saudis weren’t about to let them in again. Syria perhaps, but not nearly as much of a coup as Iraq.
As Aqua said, brilliant strategy. Especially since it placed the US smack dab in the heart of the ME with Iran to the east, and Syria to the west. To our north and south were quasi-allies… Turkey and Saudi Arabia. HA! Check!
Of course the jihad movements blew it…. murdered enough of their own Iraqi Muslim brothers and sisters in the name of jihad, and in plain sight of the world’s media, all while trying to incite a civil war. The only result was that they muddied their rep as jihad “freedom fighters”. Couldn’t uh happened to a better group of guys.
@Aqua:
Yes, I realized after I left for work that I misstated this, and was sure I’d be rightfully called on it before I got back home to correct myself. Of course troops stationed in various parts of the world are ready for combat, that’s what they do. However, in the places mentioned, they are not deployed for active combat operations. Which is different from what I’ve always understood was previously proposed for troops in Iraq – thus my concern.
@MataHarley:
Yes, just as Obama said in the speech I linked. Just because you ignored it doesn’t mean I didn’t provide it. But in order to save you the trouble of scrolling back up to find it, here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NLyx83v3Q&feature=related
Your side fought against his plan tooth and nail, and now that the plan is actually happening – in nearly the exact time frame he called for, with the provisions he called for (thus negating your “broken clock” argument), you still maintain that your side was right?! Whether Obama is directly responsible for the current outcome or not, and I agree he’s not, your side cannot honestly take credit, either. Again, you fought against it.
I’m not really sure what you mean by this, but it kinda sounds like a personal dig, which would be unbecoming of you. In case I’m misreading, I’m going to ask you to explain this statement before I respond.
@Barleymash #40:
Please cite for me the justifications put forth by the Administration in the case for war.
Not even close to “bombing the living crap” out of Iraq. And what’s with the strawman “that had never attacked us” phrase? Who said Iraq had attacked us? (Setting aside such things as an assassination attempt on a former U.S. president, no-fly zones…).
And you can’t see why Aye called you out on hitting lefty talking points? That last part is just rich in “2+2=5″ logic….it’s the “books not bombs” canard, as though if it weren’t for our military spending, we’d have more to spend on education (as if spending is the issue). Iraq war=apples. New Orleans=asparagus. What’s the correlation?!
Is that what you think our military has been doing in Iraq? “Beating it up”?!
@Barleymash #46:
In regards to your Salon link, we’ve been through all this before:
Also check comment #58.
Any more sources regarding Administration officials who supposedly knew there were no wmd in Iraq (as if wmd possession was all that the case for war was built around)?
You might find this of interest, as well:
Ah yes… Obama Sept 2008
Obama July 14th, 2008… just a few months earlier in a NYT’s Op-Ed titled “My Plan for Iraq”
uh hummm… long advocated withdrawal even when the Iraqis did NOT want the US to withdraw in 2006-07, and before their security was more solid after the Surge… which, of course, Obama confesses he opposed, and still opposes.
And then there’s that bit about redeploying our troops in order to “press the Iraqis” to take responsibility and step up. Yeah… that’s “flexible”. NOT.
Here’s your hero when he introduced his bill, the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007. This was Jan 2007, when Iraq was raw and still bleeding mightily from the violence. The Pentagon and Bush are pushing Surge. Obama’s trying to pass legislation to bolt.
Naturally, as usually surrounds Obama and his records, his floor speech in introducing the bill no longer appears on GovTrack. History… with the missing sock in the dryer or down the cyber toilet. So we’ll have to live with some excerpts:
Yeah… that’s a plan that’s dictated by events on the ground fer sure… He was still on this one trick monkey path eight months later… thru another bloody year and the battles for a Surge…in Sept 2007.
mmmmm yeah… that’s some flexibility, and withdrawal dictated by events on the ground… Say, Aqua? How many brigades in Iraq now, six months into “Obama’s withdrawal plan”, as Cary calls it?
Shall we recap now, Cary? Obama’s trying to take credit for a withdrawal that the Iraqis themselves didn’t see as feasible discussing until after the Surge demonstrated results. That would be, of course, THE SURGE THAT OBAMA OPPOSED AND STILL OPPOSES. (can ya hear me now? :0)
In 2006, when Obama was demanding the US leave Iraq *now* and “pressure” Iraqis to deal with a civil war (which they weren’t having) themselves, the Iraq Body Count stats that everyone so loves to quote had an average of 16 deaths daily from suicide bombings and vehicle attacks, and 50 daily from executions and gunfire.
In 2007, when Obama was introducing legislation to usurp the Commander in Chief and withdraw troops by Mar 2008, Iraq Body Count was reporting an increase in suicide bombing attacks… up to 21 daily, and 40 dead daily from gunfire and executions. Yep… Obama wanted to bolt when the Iraqis needed the US the most.
In 2008, with the Surge troops starting to arrive late Jan and fully in place a few months later, the average of deaths dropped to 10 per day from suicide attacks, and 14 from gunfire/executions.
And by Obama’s timeline, he should have been out of Iraq a year and three months ago… or right when the US Surge troops finished arriving to stablize the country. So I’d say that “exactly the timeline” crap of yours is just that… crap.
Oddly enough, it was about that time McCain challenged Obama to actually go visit Petraeus and Iraq, instead of dodging the General when he was in DC to present status reports. When Obama returned, he started softening his stance, and falling more in line of the “careful coming out” bit you’re locked into now.
Was that “his plan” from the beginning? Hell no, as I’ve just proven to you. Bush and US troops success in Iraq shamed that muther f*#ker into changing his tune. Nothing more.
Now… the icing on the cake. YOUR hero, so desperate to cover his cowardly track record to legislate defeat and overstep Congressional boundaries, had the chutzpah to attempt to stall the SOFA agreement until he was elected.
No, no and more no. The Iraqis did not want to negotiate with a man that advocated throwing them under the bus at their bloodiest moments. They negotiated this with the Bush admin, and this is the withdrawal both Bush and the Iraqis planned for… i.e. when Iraq was ready to secure and govern itself after the success of the Surge and Awakening, and NOT A MOMENT BEFORE. That only happened late 2008… years after Obama already stuck his foot in his mouth.
Obama’s 2006 thru 2008 plan to turn tail and run when the violence was at it’s height is NOT what is happening now. Obama’s plan now is exactly what Bush planned after Iraq was secure enough to take over. And in fact, Bush admin negotiated the withdrawal terms…. *with flexibility*.
So I trust you will understand now when I say to you, “cute does not become you”. Because unless you have the memory of a gnat and cannot remember Obama’s historical stand on Iraq and troop withdrawal, you are attempting to be “cute” when you say “…even if I don’t reach them exactly when I plan to, having a plan helps – which is what we’ve been saying all along. I guess it’s good that we now agree.”
I believe blatant ‘effin’ lie fits that statement.
Mata’s comments read like frontpage posts.
So sorry, Word da man. Just couldn’t depend upon Cary actually being able to decipher the pattern of Obama’s Iraq withdrawal history. If he thinks this is what Obama’s been saying all along, ya gotta spell it out in depth, and say it several times to sink in. So sorry to be so drawn out on it.
No need to apologize. Your comments are just works of art. If it sounds like I came off complaining, it’s ’cause I get cranky when I run out of microwaveable popcorn.
Do cary on.
@MataHarley:
With all your words, you “snipped” the following from Obama’s NY Times opinion article you cited:
I say again, although I am not giving him direct credit for the outcome (yes, he did oppose the surge, which worked – see comment 28) the plan he proposed is what’s coming into fruition. You opposed it. To say otherwise is a “blatant ‘effin’ lie.”
Told ja, Word. Even trying to spell out the ever morphing Obama lie on withdrawal to Cary, he goes back to the July 2008 op-ed where Obama’s still grasping on to the tough love “pressure the Iraqis”, but just starting to add the “talk to the commanders” bit. And of course, that’s about careful withdrawal for troop safety… not a flexibility for the ground situation INRE the Iraqis.
Cary, you need to get your head out of elementary screenplays and start learning to think cohesively. Take, for example:
I “opposed” it? I “opposed” what, Cary?
I supported staying in Iraq until the Iraqis could handle their own security and governing.
Was that possible in 2006? NO
Was that possible in 2007? NO!
Was that possible in 2008? Not until VERY late in the year.
Did Obama want to desert Iraq in bloody 2006? YES
Did Obama want to desert Iraq in bloody 2007? YES
Did Obama soften “go now” tone on the 14th of July when his bags on the O’jetliner were packed and he’d be with both Afghanistan and Iraq commanders within hours? Yes. Where was his “LEAVE NOW” plan that he’s been blowing out his rear end since 2006 and 2007?
I opposed Obama’s desertion. I supported staying until Iraq was secure. Obama’s starting to agree with me, and I’ll take that. And you are still engaging in lies…. or stupidity. Take your choice.
@MataHarley:
You’re arguing points I didn’t make. I brought up the position he campaigned with, which you opposed. Continue with the personal attacks, and my part in the conversation will be over.
Cary, you never brought a brain cell to this conversation. Especially if you think you can neatly divide candidate Obama from Senator Obama from President Obama. They are all the same Eunuch in Chief…. the guy who’s been campaigning since 2007.
So ta ta, bubba. This level of “conversation” with your self-imposed rules to make you look informed doesn’t interest me.
@MataHarley:
I guess a conversation devoid of ad hominem attacks from you is too much to ask for. I’ve respected you, through our disagreements, and have not attacked you personally, I expected the same in return from you. Thank you for admitting your lack of interest in civility. I’ve made my points, and stand by them. We can both move on now. Have a good night.
Wow. Don’t you “alpha males” ever sleep or go to work?
I swear it’s like playing Whack-a-Mole in here.
Aye, you might not want to be so quick to claim you “pummeled” me. The problem is, you don’t even understand your own proof-points. Yes, as you establish ad nauseum, Tenet sId the case for WMDs was a slam dunk. The CASE for WMDs. As I’ve said all along, Tenet said he’d be able to support the WMD argument for going to war. That’s not the same thing as saying the TRUTH of WMDs is a slam-dunk.
And to clarify the Alpha Male thing: first, I’m pretty sure that if you have to type on a blog that you’re an alpha male, well then, you ain’t. More importantly, alpha males lead and protect the pack. The behavior this pack has in general been endorsing is the slaughter of children and women as a tool to secure their personal safety. In fact, someone referred to the Iraqis as cockroaches. That’s more akin to PREYING on the pack. Behavior that would identify you as the Omega males — the outcasts, scavengers, pariahs. Funny thing about Omegas — they THINK they’re Alphas and so they slink around the edges of the pack at night displaying faux-alpha behavior until they get challenged.
So, on to Saddam. He was secular until nearly his downfall, at which time he played the religion card to scrape up some support in the Arab world. I would dig up sources for this, but I’m fairly sure you dug past dozens of them already on your way to the apocryphal and meaningless “Q’uran of Blood!” (Cue Night on Bald Mountain). (“Hey, didya know Adolf was a devout Christian? Yeah! he had the Spear of Longinus so it must be true.”)
like I said, it’s like playing whack-a-mole in here, but unlike you alphas, this poor beta actually has to work. I’ve found out what I was curious about. You don’t feel there’s a moral component to war. You consider foreigners to be expendable cockroaches, and you don’t mind being lied to by your government. (that last one, by the way, would identify you as the ” subservient” rank in the wolf pack. Just FYI.)
Later!
@Barleymash:
Is that the best you can do?
Seriously?
Yeah, you were pummeled. Now, you’re so punch drunk that you don’t even realize that you’re continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Laughable.
Absolutely. Laughable.
Not being one to continue to kick a guy while he’s down, I’ll move on now.
In post 43 you were whining about name-calling being pathetic (even though no one had called you any names) yet, in your latest screed, you engage in….wait for it….name calling and ad hominem attacks.
Hypocrisy, line one.
Hypocrisy, line one please.
All while ignoring the cited, documented facts that are raining down around you.
To use your own words….“if you disagree with my points, you might want to either ignore them or refute them.”
Heh.
By the way, yes, I work. Successfully self-employed. I could give you more details but, quite frankly, it’s none of your damned business. Nor is it cogent to the discussion that we are having.
@Mata
I know, but I caught this in post #55 and knew arguing numbers with BM was a lost cause.
With that statement, he justifies every casualty in the war was our fault.
As for GaffUK’s post and your reply…I’m not a politician. If I were advising the CinC I would have referred to Sun Tzu:
It is not the job of a military to go somewhere with a serious disadvantage and hope for the best. It is the job of the military to gain the advantage and destroy the enemy. Back in the day, we would have had so many B-52′s in the air as to blot out the sun. They would have bombed every military target around; roads, bridges, industrial complexes, and ports. The collateral damage would have been enormous. Now, we have precision bombing that can drop a bomb on a gnat’s butt. In my opinion, this war has been fought with honor and respect for the people whose land we temporarily occupied. I would make no apologies for the actions of the CinC or the Joint Chiefs and their staff.
Good morning, Aye! You’re right — I don’t care what you do for a living. I was just making conversation. But speaking of conversation, you might want to go back and actually READ my post before you accuse me of hypocrisy. I wasn’t name calling. You guys have been tossing around the “Alpha Male/Beta Male” crap. I was simply responding to it. Your posturing is pretty amusing.
But you’re right in the greater scheme; let’s get back to the rebuttals!
Lots of points here will be a matter of your trusted source vs. my trusted source.
ISSUES
1) Body Count:
From John Tirman, executive director and principal research scientist at MIT’s Center for International Studies:
SUMMARY: The human cost of Bush’s war: 1 million dead. 4.5 million displaced. 1 million to 2 million widows. 5 million orphans.
We have a better grasp of the human costs of the war. For example, the United Nations estimates that there are about 4.5 million displaced Iraqis–more than half of them refugees–or about one in every six citizens. Only 5 percent have chosen to return to their homes over the past year, a period of reduced violence from the high levels of 2005-07. The availability of healthcare, clean water, functioning schools, jobs and so forth remains elusive. According to Unicef, many provinces report that less than 40 percent of households have access to clean water. More than 40 percent of children in Basra, and more than 70 percent in Baghdad, cannot attend school.
The mortality caused by the war is also high. Several household surveys were conducted between 2004 and 2007. While there are differences among them, the range suggests a congruence of estimates. But none have been conducted for eighteen months, and the two most reliable surveys were completed in mid-2006. The higher of those found 650,000 “excess deaths” (mortality attributable to war); the other yielded 400,000. The war remained ferocious for twelve to fifteen months after those surveys were finished and then began to subside. Iraq Body Count, a London NGO that uses English-language press reports from Iraq to count civilian deaths, provides a means to update the 2006 estimates. While it is known to be an undercount, because press reports are incomplete and Baghdad-centric, IBC nonetheless provides useful trends, which are striking. Its estimates are nearing 100,000, more than double its June 2006 figure of 45,000. (It does not count nonviolent excess deaths–from health emergencies, for example–or insurgent deaths.) If this is an acceptable marker, a plausible estimate of total deaths can be calculated by doubling the totals of the 2006 household surveys, which used a much more reliable and sophisticated method for estimates that draws on long experience in epidemiology. So we have, at present, between 800,000 and 1.3 million “excess deaths” as we approach the six-year anniversary of this war.
2) Saddam as “Jihadist proxy”:
You note Saddam was utilizing jihad groups as an unofficial state terror weapon since the early 90s. So were we, since much earlier. Really. We supported and armed the Taliban, which sheltered to Al Qaeda. That’s “proxy.”
There’s more but I’ve got to take a meeting.
B
@Barleymash:
Boy, you really do live in a very charming, colorful corner of your alternate reality don’t you?
You, sir, are the one who brought up the whole “Alpha Male/beta Male” thing….that’s your spew, don’t try to credit anyone else.
It’s all yours. Be proud of it.
So far, you’ve made points and multiple contributors have run circles around you while grinding your lies, and and your silliness, into the ground with indisputable facts and documented evidence.
Yet you continue to puff your chest and strut about as if you have something of value to offer.
Thanks for stopping by.
It’s always good to have someone to laugh at.
@Aye
Sorry Aye, that was me. I called BM a beta male. I’ll stand by it though.
As I said in my earlier post, BM called this Bush’s war, or rather “not the Iraqis’ war.” Therefore, all casualties are laid at the feet of the U.S. It won’t matter what anyone says about the hundreds of thousands of people killed, tortured or raped under Saddam. Won’t matter how many American military were spared because we fought on terrain where we had an advantage. Won’t matter that we weren’t attacked again because we brought the fight to them. Beta male.
Hey,Aye — Aqua started the the alpha/beta discussion in post 61. Simple search, amigo.
As I said, I don’t want to mess up your little playground. I DO live in a lovely colorful world where people take responsibility for their actions. They don’t sit behind their keyboards and quote Sun Tzu while real people are dying in a war THEY cheerlead for. And yes, Aqua, if WE start a war then that war IS our responsibility. How could it not be? In what world does shooting first not count for anything? Oh yeah — the world where foreigners are expendable cockroaches.
You guys are clearly having fun nitpicking and parsing your post-facto justifications. But you’re completely uninterested in the bigger, more important questions of “Why?” and “At what cost?” In my colorful little world (i.e. the real one) The decision to go to war is infinitely more important than the strategies employed once the war begins. But that’s what you folks would rather discuss. Go for it. I’m never going to persuade hard-core “people are cockroaches” types anyway. What comforts me is the fact that most of America agrees with me. It’s our side that’s laughing, Aye.
@Aqua:
Thank you Aqua.
I stand corrected.
I searched for “Alpha” not “Beta”.
My error on that point.
@Barleymash:
So many canards, such little time.
The Taliban was formed in 1994 by Mullah Omar:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562262680835357.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1549285.stm
We didn’t found or fund bin Laden or his thugs, either:
Read more:
http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20090505134735atlahtnevel0.5280725.html#ixzz0K1C0XUpS&C
Read more:
http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20090505134735atlahtnevel0.5280725.html#ixzz0K1AmdGaE&C
Gary Bernsten, recently interviewed, was on the ground in the opening of this Afghan war leading his CIA agents through the mountains to lazer critical sites for bombing. Authored “Jawbreaker” his account of those days.
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/24/taliban-not-going-anywhere/
So Aqua — You’re a soldier? Did time in Iraq?
@Barleymash
I was in the Air Force from 1979 until 1990. I got out because Bush I and congress were trying to remove dependents from our medical coverage, and still paying us little or nothing. When Gulf War I broke out, I volunteered to return but was never called up.
My little brother (Navy) did multiple tours in Iraq during Gulf War I and Iraq and Afghanistan in Gulf War II. He has two Air Medals and multiple other commendations.
By the way, I realize flying an airplane into a building doesn’t constitute “firing the first shot,” but I’m going to go out on a limb and say it could possibly be the start of a war. Once a war is started, we, the U.S. are allowed to do what we see fit to win it. If that means invading a complicit country in the interests of logistics, so be it. After WWII, Patton said we should turn our tanks north and take care of Russia. Turns out, he was right.
@Missy:
Don’t go confusing the poor guy with more inconvenient facts.
He’ll just ignore them, spin himself into a tizzy, or lie and say that isn’t what his argument was way back in his previous posts even though it’s so very easy for us to scroll up and quote his own words.
Actually, Missy, thanks — that’s great info. I’m going to read more of that when I have the time. I appreciate it.
Aqua, thanks, I suspected you were; you sounded like someone who understood military life better than some of the armchair generals. But I fundamentally disagree with the idea that ” Once a war is started, we, the U.S. are allowed to do what we see fit to win it.” I’d love to know how we get a free pass to drag noncombatant nations into our shooting wars. Is that your personal opinion, in which case, well, there’s nothing else to say except I disagree, or are you relying on some legal authority? The International Red Cross, for instance, cites this rule as fundamental to waging war: “Neither the parties to the conflict nor members of their armed forces have an unlimited right to choose methods and means of warfare.” You probably don’t agree, but to what license do you refer? I mean, you do recognize our obligations under the Geneva Conventions, don’t you?
And Aye, you really have to stop declaring Mission Accomplished. It didn’t work for your hero Dubya and it won’t work for you.
B
@Barleymash:
Another factual distortion.
Imagine that.
“Dubya” never declared Mission Accomplished.
You’ve gone and gotten yourself entangled in another Leftist talking point.
ah yes… had to figure that the hypersensitive and delicate barley would take issue with the “cockroach theory”. In his “colorful world”, apparently reading comprehension is an option, while he demands other go back and “actually READ” his posts. Oh my…
Instead, mash takes a discussion with Gaffa about why Iraq was a logical theatre choice to engage the global Islamic jihad movement in war, and conflates that to charge that I “…referred to the Iraqis as cockroaches”, and “…consider foreigners to be expendable cockroaches”..
What has public education come to….
Absorb this, mash:
1: the discussion was about military strategy and theatres after Afghanistan. Therefore the “cockroach theory” relates not to Iraqis, but the jihad movements that fought with AQ, Taliban, etal. And that includes members of all different nationalities.
2: the cockroach theory is that when you disturb their nest, they scatter to other digs nearby
So yes… when it comes to waging war and strategy, the jihad movement is indeed human cockroaches. But I’m sure you’d think they’re really very nice guys, if you met them.
I see that reading comprehension is not your only educational downfall. We’ll have to add history.
The US supported Afghan elements in the 80s against the Soviets. They were the mujahideen, who are now known as the Northern Alliance. There was an OBL fighting at their side, pre AQ days. And no doubt, some of those in Mullah Omar’s Taliban were also in the mix. For you see, this was the 80s, and the Taliban was not formed until 1993-94.
The Taliban was created by Pakistan’s Maulana Fazlur Rahman of Pakistan (known in that nation as “The Father of the Taliban”, who orchestrated forming the group with Afghanistan’s Mullah Omar. Their purpose was to protect Zardari’s cotton shipments during the Pakistan drought, that were being raided by Hekmatyar. They were begat, funded and supported by Benazir Bhutto’s admin, as well as the man now holding the Presidency in Pakistan. Musharraf was also involved.
Thus your comment that the US (ala the CIA) “supported and armed the Taliban” bears little resemblence to reality since the Taliban simply did not exist in the 1980s. In fact, the support lent to the mujahideen in the 80s, now known as the Northern Alliance, were those that fought along side the US against the Taliban in our war, as the Taliban overthrew the Alliance for control, starting with Kabul in 1996.
That said, the Northern Alliance is as brutal a group as the Taliban. However they are still two different groups, and at war with each other for power, as the different jihad factions do when they are not fighting a common enemy.
I’ve already addressed your idiocy INRE the claim that the US has “killed hundreds of thousands” of Iraqis. You prefer to pick up some 400,000 to 600,000 number as convenience to your argument and diss the Iraq Body Count. There’s two points to this:
1: It is not the US that is responsible for vehicle and suicide bombings, nor executions. You go thru the incidents on the IBC site and you will find few over the history that are associated with US or coalition collateral damage. That you blame our troops for the enemies kills is not only unconcionable, it’s blatantly anti-American.
2: Using your puffed up number of just 400,000 entails the world believe that in the (as of today) 2295 days since OIF commenced, 174 people have died each and every day in Iraq. It’s 261 if you use your 600,000 deaths claim. None of this is either believable, nor substantiated.
Which of course means that along with your reading and history disabilities, you also have math disabilities. All of which probably qualifies you to have a seat in the US Congress.
@Barleymash
Like I said, I’m not a politician nor a diplomat. Before the war was prosecuted, I’m sure there were many discussions held with the best military minds America has to offer. I’m also sure there was a conversation concerning the very real possiblity of the influx of “jihadists” from other countries joining the fight in Afghanistan. And that conversation surely involved detailing the number of U.S. casualties that would be incurred in a fight in Afghanistan.
To answer you question, it would be my opinion. However, I would disagree with you that Iraq was a country of innocent non-combatants. I would point out several countries in the region that were complicit in the 9-11 attacks. Does that give us the right to invade those countries for logistical reasons? That’s a matter for politicians and diplomats. From a military standpoint, I would say absolutely.
The history of war in Afghanistan is there for everyone to read. Is a military commander supposed to prosecute a war knowing they are at a disadvantage or devise a way to gain the advantage? Like Patton said after out manuvering Rommel, “Rommel you magnificent bastard, I read your book.”
@Aye Chihuahua:
So, how are we supposed to interpret THIS?
@Barleymash #85:
How do you reconcile this statement with your blogpost entry, which Cary linked to? You seemed to be questioning why we were staying in Iraq, when major combat operations had ended, and Saddam removed from power. Would it have been a responsible course of action if “we broke it, don’t own it”, and simply packed our bags and left chaos in our wake? How is that compassionate toward the Iraqi people? How does that enhance American credibility and promote national security interests?
Did Mata call foreigners cockroaches? Way to spin before our eyes. I hope her comment #93 offers you some clarity.
The decision to go to war has been discussed and debated ad naseam; this post wasn’t addressing that. But if you want to hijack the comments thread and rehash it, knock yourself out.
Just realize “the bigger, more important question” of “why” might be the smaller question. Because whether you were for or against the decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam, reality says: “What do we do, now that we’re there?”
@Barleymash #79:
What did the government lie about, specifically? I’m still waiting for your proof about Administration officials who sent the country to war, knowing the threat of wmds was just a lot of malarkey.
@Mata
Perfect.
@Cary:
Cary, are YOU serious?!?!
Maybe I shouldn’t be so incredulous, but….as a reader here, surely you’ve seen/read previous posts that have dealt pretty thoroughly on this topic? And even if you skipped those, or weren’t here then, I’d think someone who’s as astute as you would already realize what a bogus talking point this is by the war critics.
I can try to dig up some past discussions/posts, if you’d like.