"Mission Accomplished"

[Ixiah]

I am right now in a debate with ABC over a number of things but the big problem for me about the war is an obvious one:

How do we 'win' ?

[Tyrone Shoelace]

Denny, we are obviously NOT in the "no spin zone" and no he did not answer your question.
Getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do. After 9/11 our policy is to defeat terrorism and those who harbor terrorist. War is never easy and it is always messy, but to compare Iraq to Vietnam is rediculous. We would lose more soldiers in a week of Vietnam than we have in the entire Iraq war.
People who don't have the stomach for casualties actually cost more lives because they wont let us just go in and win. Instead they cry loud about the collateral damage and force us to do things slower and more methodical. Thus dragging out the war even longer. If you can beat somone with a few hard punches then do it! Don't extend the fight by jabbing for 15 rounds and having to take more punches yourself. We can thank the libs and the lib media for having to fight with jabs. They have no clue how to defend a nation.

[SHOCKvalue]

Wasn't responding to you, I was responding to Ricky Bobby.

PLEASE tell me what I posted earlier that has anything to do with this Iraq vs. Vietnam, government conspiracy tangent you took off solo on.

I don't see a correlation, but hey, perhaps your Birkenstock's are a little too tight, or your Riverside Perk espresso a little too strong.

[Maggie]

I think that the Iraq War can neatly be divided into three distinct parts:

(1) The decision to invade in the first place: At the time, I as did many of our elected leaders, believed based upon what we were told that an invasion of Iraq was necessary to prosecute the larger "War on Terror". It should be noted, that many of these elected leaders had access to information that you and I were not privy to and still supported the war. In my mind, many of those opposed to the invasion would never have supported the use of military force anyway. This information coupled with Iraq's failure to comply with UN Resolutions lead directly to the invasion. I did have one worry about the chosen course of action, but I will get to that later.

(2) The actual war itself: No one can dispute the remarkable performance of our armed forces. Despite many dire predictions, given size of Iraq's military, our soldiers and sailors dispatched its enemies with a speed and purpose unrivaled in history. This is the only aspect; I would give an A+ grade.

(3) Now that Iraq's leadership has been removed, what next?: This is, obviously, the crux of the issue. My main concern with the invasion itself is the fact that I knew we would have to engage in something that I, as a conservative, do not believe is generally a good idea – "Nation Building". It is a long and arduous process that I don't think that the Bush Administration properly prepared the American people. In fact, they did not seem to be very prepared for it either – which is inexcusable.

The problem the Bush Administration has been dealing with for the past several years is two basic presumptions: On of these, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom. The second was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymakers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.

With regard to the latter presumption, the administration has largely failed. The troop surge has seemed to help matters and Iraq's leadership seem to be getting better – but we are a long way from having a stable situation. But the larger problem is those assumptions provide the basis for much of our countries policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in Asia. Are we supposed to abandon these presumptions and admit that in one theater in the Middle East – they did not work? It is more difficult to do that than you might think. It is an interesting challenge our government has if indeed "we" want to pull all our troops out in short order, i.e. It must persuade itself that it can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.

I for one don't necessarily believe all is lost but, rather, we need to renew our commitment to Iraq and continue to aid them in stabilizing the country. I don't think we can simply back away, thereby allowing a country like Iran to fill the political vacuum. And I have grown tired over the years of our elected officials seeking to score political points by demanding "timelines" and that certain criteria be met (interestingly the stated criteria always seems to change). Should we expect more of the Iraq's new government? Probably. But we would be well served to remember the founding of our own country – which was not as smooth as people seem to believe.

My two cents, sorry it is so long.

[SubGod22]

Well said Maggie. You put things much better than I ever could have.

[Maggie]

Well said Maggie. You put things much better than I ever could have.

Thanks. That is nice of you to write.

As an aside, when the Bush Administration began making the case for the invasion part of the reason I found myself reluctantly supporting it was the simple fact that it was such a enormous political risk for the President. In addition, I seem to recall President Bush while running for office state that he did not believe in "Nation Building". As a result, I naturally assumed the Administration must have a very good reason for recommending military action. Even now, I have to believe that the Administration, and those elected officials that supported the war, did feel that a military option was necessary and justified.

That being said, I cannot account for the way the Administration has handled "post-war activities".

[SubGod22]

Agreed

[RoyalShock]

Well said Maggie. You put things much better than I ever could have.

Thanks. That is nice of you to write.

As an aside, when the Bush Administration began making the case for the invasion part of the reason I found myself reluctantly supporting it was the simple fact that it was such a enormous political risk for the President. In addition, I seem to recall President Bush while running for office state that he did not believe in "Nation Building". As a result, I naturally assumed the Administration must have a very good reason for recommending military action. Even now, I have to believe that the Administration, and those elected officials that supported the war, did feel that a military option was necessary and justified.

That being said, I cannot account for the way the Administration has handled "post-war activities".

As much as I'd love to agree with this view (and I used to), I just can't anymore. I no longer buy that Bush didn't believe in nation-building. I think invading Iraq was on the administration's radar from day one and that they took the first justifyable, lowest political risk opportunity to go in. Plus it was done illegally (as defined by the Constitution), and as an extention of the U.N., since it was U.N. sanctions that Saddam was supposedly violating. This was, in effect, a U.N. policing operation, which I don't believe we should be doing.

I can't argue that having Saddam out of power is probably a good thing. But the ends don't always justify the means, particularly when it involves the loss of more American lives. Bin Laden was and is our enemy and the immediate threat. All our efforts should have been getting him and as much of Al-Quaida as our nets could catch.

[Maggie]

As much as I'd love to agree with this view (and I used to), I just can't anymore. I no longer buy that Bush didn't believe in nation-building. I think invading Iraq was on the administration's radar from day one and that they took the first justifyable, lowest political risk opportunity to go in. Plus it was done illegally (as defined by the Constitution), and as an extention of the U.N., since it was U.N. sanctions that Saddam was supposedly violating. This was, in effect, a U.N. policing operation, which I don't believe we should be doing.

I can't argue that having Saddam out of power is probably a good thing. But the ends don't always justify the means, particularly when it involves the loss of more American lives. Bin Laden was and is our enemy and the immediate threat. All our efforts should have been getting him and as much of Al-Quaida as our nets could catch.

Bush, obviously and in my opinion unfortunately, changed his mind, at least as far as Iraq is concerned, on the issue of nation building. I guess my point is that I have to believe, otherwise I would lose all reasonable faith in our government, that our elected officials (from both political parties) believed that military force was justified and necessary at the time the decision to use military force was made – the stakes were just too high (both politically and because you are putting our soldiers in harms way).

If you don't mind, please explain the illegality of the Iraq War as it concerns the Constitution. I seem to recall he did get authorization from Congress – although not a declaration of war.

Why would invading Iraq be so high on this Administration's to do list? I refuse to believe that our government would risk the lives of Americans cavalierly. Also, I wouldn't say that the Administration decision to invade would be considered "low political risk" – how do you justify that statement?

As far as the United Nations goes, I personally believe it is a corrupt, useless shell of an organization. However, if the UN is to have any credibility (admittedly I have difficulty using the word credibility and UN in the same sentence), it must be able to enforce its resolutions and it does that by the utilizing the resources of its member nations. In the case of Iraq, I don't actually recall but I am not confident that the actual invasion was "approved" by the UN Security Counsel – I believe the "coalition" of nations that support the war simply acted due to their believe that Iraq materially breached prior resolutions put in place after the first Gulf War. Given your stance on the UN using force, do you believe that the Korean War (which actually was a "UN Police Action") was also a mistake?

What do you think the United States should do now?

[RoyalShock]

The Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war. They didn't do that. The did an end-run by giving the President authority to use force.

Count me as one who has lost faith that the current administration has the best interests of the citizens at heart. New gov't agencies, out of control spending and trampling on the Constitution and our individual liberties has led me to this conclusion. And I hold Congress equally accountable.

I'm not informed enough on the Korean war to comment on it specifically, so I won't.

We may not have gone into Iraq with the blessing of the UN, but it was their resolutions that were being violated. Iraq wasn't a direct threat to the U.S. at the time. Unless aggressive actions were being taken against a member nation, we shouldn't be losing American lives on their behalf. As the largest member nation, we have become their police force.

As for what I think we should do, we need to wash our hands the best we can of the current Iraq initiative, refocus our efforts to fight Al-Quaida (which now, unfortunately means involvement in Iraq, though with a different goal), enforce our borders and repeal the Patriot Act.

[BostonWu]

Why would invading Iraq be so high on this Administration's to do list? I refuse to believe that our government would risk the lives of Americans cavalierly. Also, I wouldn't say that the Administration decision to invade would be considered "low political risk" – how do you justify that statement?

Perhaps not the entire motive but it remains a fact that Saddam tried to assassinate W's father. I don't think that can be discounted.

[Maggie]

The Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war. They didn't do that. The did an end-run by giving the President authority to use force.

Count me as one who has lost faith that the current administration has the best interests of the citizens at heart. New gov't agencies, out of control spending and trampling on the Constitution and our individual liberties has led me to this conclusion. And I hold Congress equally accountable.

I'm not informed enough on the Korean war to comment on it specifically, so I won't.

We may not have gone into Iraq with the blessing of the UN, but it was their resolutions that were being violated. Iraq wasn't a direct threat to the U.S. at the time. Unless aggressive actions were being taken against a member nation, we shouldn't be losing American lives on their behalf. As the largest member nation, we have become their police force.

As for what I think we should do, we need to wash our hands the best we can of the current Iraq initiative, refocus our efforts to fight Al-Quaida (which now, unfortunately means involvement in Iraq, though with a different goal), enforce our borders and repeal the Patriot Act.

There is truth to your assertion that a formal declaration of war is necessary for the president to use military force in the manner in which it was, as is, being utilized in Iraq. However, the precedent to some extent was set by Korea. That being said, I understand where you are coming from. Power, as it is, has been steadily growing and has steadily been consolidated in the executive. Of one thing I am certain, our founding fathers did not approve of a “king” or “queen”.

I too have grown despondent over the “quality” of elected officials during the past 15 or so years – but there are certain lines that are not crossed. I don’t believe that this administration was simply looking for an “excuse” to invade Iraq.

With regard to the UN. Yes, its resolutions were being violated. However, that alone would not have engendered my support for invasion. I believe and still do, that we in a “war”, whether the majority of the American public believe it or not. And it is a different kind of war – that reality help persuade me that invasion was a viable option at the time.

Royal – you write that we should wash our hand of Iraq, as best we can. I ask you – what does that mean? If I were speaking for the United States, I would want to be assured that we are a country that lives up to and stands by our decisions. As such, I would not advocate “washing our hands” of Iraq – we should, on a moral and political basis finish what we started. As I stated in my first post in this thread – we should not abandon the policies we have sought to engender in the larger world because it has proved more difficult, is this particular theater, than our elected officials, anyway, anticipated.

A stable Iraq is good for the security of this country.

[SubGod22]

Abandoning Iraq would be a bad play for the US.

Abandoning the UN on the other hand.....

Like I've said earlier, if you agree with the war or not, sticking it out and finishing what we started is a must.

[RoyalShock]

Here's some interesting words from McCain on the campaign trail that implies the primary reason we are fighting in the Gulf is for oil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EHtjYiXlx4

That seems awfully specific to have been a gaffe, particularly considering his "100 years in Iraq" rhetoric.

[SpanglerFan316]

Abandoning Iraq would be a bad play for the US.

Abandoning the UN on the other hand.....

Like I've said earlier, if you agree with the war or not, sticking it out and finishing what we started is a must.

If we "stick() it out and finish() what we started" then the government of Iraq will have no reason to reach a political agreement and we will be in Iraq for 100 or 200 or 300 years. The investment in the future which the government should be making is being lost to the war in Iraq. We did and are doing a half-a**ed job in Afghanistan because our troops are in Iraq. We need to establish a withdrawal schedule for Iraq, reinforce Afghanistan, rebuild our military and invest in science, technology, medical research, etc.