Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Come on, need I say it? The Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. Jesus is Lord. and He loves you Lotus.
I disagree, and since you brought God into it,
“Woe unto those who call evil good and good evil.” Isaiah 5:20
I do enjoy the exchange though.
I liked the bucko comment. Hear is an article you may want to read. What do you think will happen in Iraq if we get out?
Iraq Through The Lens Of Joe Lieberman
By SENATOR JOE LIEBERMAN | Posted Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:30 PM PT
Following are highlights of a speech by Sen. Joe Lieberman on the Senate floor last week responding to Majority Leader Harry Reid’s justifications for Congress to take control of the direction of the Iraq War. Click here to read the full speech.
• Sen. Reid wants to “transition the U.S. mission away from policing a civil war — to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counter-terror operations.”
Lieberman: What does this actually mean? Instead of restoring basic security, which Gen. (David) Petraeus (commander of Multinational Force Iraq) has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would be ordered . . . not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them — no matter how vicious or horrific.
Lieberman: Cutting through the catchphrases.
In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians — men, women and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. This makes no moral sense at all.
It also makes no strategic or military sense. Al-Qaida’s own leaders have repeatedly said that one of the ways they intend to achieve victory in Iraq is to provoke civil war. They are trying to kill as many people as possible today, precisely in the hope of igniting sectarian violence, because they know that this is their best way to collapse Iraq’s political center, overthrow Iraq’s elected government, radicalize its population and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that they can use as a base.
That is why al-Qaida blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra last year. And that is why we are seeing mass casualty suicide bombings by al-Qaida in Baghdad now.
I do not know how to say it more plainly: It is al-Qaida that is trying to cause a full-fledged civil war in Iraq.
• Sen. Reid believes U.S. troops will still be able to conduct “targeted counter-terror operations” under his plan. Even if we stop trying to protect civilians in Iraq, in other words, we can still go after the bad guys.
But again, how would this translate into military reality on the ground? How would we find these terrorists, who do not gather on conventional military bases or fight in conventional formations?
By definition, targeted counterterrorism requires our forces to know where, when, and against whom to strike — and that in turn requires accurate, actionable, real-time intelligence.
How, exactly, are U.S. forces to gather intelligence about where, when and against whom to strike, after you have ordered them walled off from the Iraqi population? How, exactly, are U.S. forces to carry out targeted counter-terror operations, after you have ordered them cut off from the very source of intelligence that drives these operations?
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t withdraw combat troops from Iraq and still fight al-Qaida there. If you believe there is no hope of winning in Iraq, or that the costs of victory there are not worth it, then you should be for complete withdrawal as soon as possible.
• Sen. Reid has called for “the phased redeployment of our troops no later than Oct. 1, 2007,” a deadline that will “put pressure on the Iraqis to make the desperately needed political compromises.”
But will it? According to the legislation before us, the withdrawal will happen regardless of what the Iraqi government does. How, then, if you are an Iraqi government official, does this give you any incentive to make the right choices? On the contrary, there is compelling reason to think a legislatively directed withdrawal of American troops will have exactly the opposite effect than its Senate sponsors intend.
This, in fact, is exactly what the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq predicted: A withdrawal of U.S. troops in the months ahead would “almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni resistance and have adverse effects on national reconciliation.”
• Sen. Reid also has said that withdrawing our troops will “reduce the specter of the U.S. occupation which gives fuel to the insurgency.”
In other words, (he) is suggesting the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.
But… where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before Gen. Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul, Fallujah, Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?
On the contrary — in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, al-Qaida rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.
• Sen. Reid has observed that there is “a large and growing population of millions — who sit precariously on the fence. They will either condemn or contribute to terrorism in the years ahead. We must convince them of the goodness of America and Americans. We must win them over.”
On this, I completely agree. (But) how does the strategy proposed (by Reid) help win over this population of millions in Iraq, who sit precariously on the fence? How will they respond when we tell them that we will no longer make any effort to protect them against insurgents and death squads? How will they respond when we declare that we will be withdrawing our forces — regardless of whether they make progress in the next six months towards political reconciliation? Where will their hopes for a better life be when we withdraw the troops that are the necessary precondition for the security and stability they yearn for?
Does anyone really believe that, by announcing a date certain for withdrawal, we will empower Iraqi moderates, or enable Iraq’s reconstruction, or open more schools for their children, or more hospitals for their families, or freedom for everyone? With all due respect, this is fantasy.
• Sen. Reid also proposes to impose “tangible, measurable and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government.”
I am all for such benchmarks. But I don’t see how this plan will encourage Iraqis to meet these or any other benchmarks, given its ironclad commitment to abandon them — regardless of how they behave.
We should . . . be making every effort to encourage reconciliation in Iraq and the development of a decent political order that Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds can agree on. But even if today that political solution was found, we cannot rationally think that our terrorist enemies like al-Qaida in Iraq will simply vanish.
Al-Qaida is not mass-murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table. It wants to blow up the table — along with everyone seated at it. Al-Qaida wants to destroy any prospect for democracy in Iraq, and it will not be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. It must be fought and defeated through force of arms. And there can be no withdrawal, no redeployment from this reality.
• Sen. Reid also has proposed a “diplomatic, economic, and political offensive starting with a regional conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the region.”
All of us are aware of the justified frustration, fatigue, and disappointment of the American people.
And all of us would like to believe that there is a quick and easy solution to the challenges we face in Iraq.
But none of this gives us an excuse to paper over hard truths. We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between al-Qaida terrorism and sectarian violence, or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving, or that sweet reason alone will suddenly convince Iran and Syria to stop destabilizing Iraq.
What we need now is a sober assessment of the progress we have made and a recognition of the challenges we face. There are still many uncertainties before us, many complexities. Barely half of the new troops that Gen. Petraeus has requested have even arrived in Iraq, and it will still be months before we will know just how effective his new strategy is.
In following Gen. Petraeus’ path, there is no guarantee of success — but there is hope, and a new plan, for success. (Reid’s) plan, on the other hand, contains no such hope. It is a strategy of catchphrases and bromides, rather than military realities in Iraq. It does not learn from the many mistakes we have made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them.
Let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost — but if we follow this plan, it will be. And so, I fear, much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home.To help birth a nation and staying true to our promises is how we win. We are there now, like it or not. If we leave, there will be massive murder of innocents and a haven for terrorists. That is what losing is. That is also what Osama Bin Laden wants. Winning is doing the opposite of what your enemy wants.
Do you think leaving is a better idea? At this point don’t we owe it to the Iraqi people to stay and help fight the terrorists who want control of their country.
Do you think the terrorists are neither a force of good or evil? Or a force of both? Just like you and me.
God forbid we do anything that is a benefit to us, Maravilla. If we did do anything that wasn’t in our best interest and only noble or altruistic, you would complain that the U.S. is constantly forcing its values onto other people.
You would not praise the U.S. for doing something good. Do you believe the U.S. is a force for good or bad in the world? Do you want the U.S. to lose in Iraq?
I thought the pre-war Iraqi mortality rates seemed low. That rate is how they figured 600,000 Iraqi deaths. There are also many other death counts figured by other independent groups that are much lower. The Iraqi government estimates 100,000-200,000 for example.
When you stated earlier 600,000 I had never heard that number. I read the study you posted and read other articles that contradict that study. 600,000 is shocking! I just want to know the real number. It seems to me that everyone who opposed this war wants to believe the worst statistics to support their view.
I don’t know you and wouldn’t question your patriotism. As far as being a robot or “droid” as you called it, I find the term hypocritical because you are parroting everyone who you think like. Nothing new or original.
Lotus, Do you believe that pre-war Iraq had a better mortality rate than any other middle eastern country including Israel?
Do you think the study is credible?
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/10/600000_iraqis_killed_by_war_cr.html
