-U.S. deaths in Iraq = 2,626
-U.S. maimed or wounded in Iraq = 67,900
-Iraqi civilians dead = 215,500
-American tax spending in Iraq = $310,397,337,309.00
-Civil war between the Sunnis and Shiite
-Reports of tourturing POW's in Abu-Graib
-Loss of respect in the eyes the world
-Breeding ground for terroists

What's been accomplished, Mark?

Only the Democrats, with their cut-and-run plan, can snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory at this point.

Scream that tired talking point as loud as you want, but the majority of Americans have had it with the war.

It's time to end this madness and bring our troops home!

Mark,

Even if the war was over tomorrow, it would be a victory, yet also a failure, as Americans did not sign on for an occupation and it was to be a brief war, on the cheap.

Neither happened due to the incredible lack for foresight and Rummy going it alone rather than listen to the commanders in the field that had actually been in combat.

Your biggest mistake was entrusting a Secretary of Defense whose combat experience was limited to his playing with his GI Joes and toy soldiers.

Of course you Republicans are incapable of learning from your mistakes or adjusting course in lieu of a failed strategy... Which is why it is time for you to go is long past due.

Make way for someone with intelligence and combat experience to clean up your ugly little mess

Maybe its time for a civil war - here.

kahn,

if that were to happen, how long do you think the administration would hold off calling it a civil war, instead choosing something somewhat more soothing sounding?

Only the Democrats, with their cut-and-run plan, can snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory at this point.

They did it before and will do it again, if allowed.

but the majority of Americans have had it with the war.

Based off of what, skewed polls of a couple hundred?

It's time to end this madness and bring our troops home!

Troops I talk to at my local VFW Post say different. My guess is they know a little more about it that you do.

Of course you Republicans are incapable of learning from your mistakes or adjusting course in lieu of a failed strategy

You mean, like the Democrats forcing an abandonment of Viet nam and barring any assistance as Saigon fell, resulting in untoild millions of deaths from the Communists and from others trying to escape on rickety boats in the South China Sea? It would seem you words apply more to the left than Republicans.

Make way for someone with intelligence and combat experience to clean up your ugly little mess

Who? Kerry? Gore? I have twice the amount of boots on the ground time in Viet Nam as both of them -- COMBINED! By your words, that should make me more qualified than they are.

BTW, better be careful throwing around that word "intelligence." Seems your boy Kerry wasn't as smart in college as he thought.

"What's been accomplished, Mark?"-TL

TL, here's the answer to your question. There are of course many other accomplishments, but I'll just highlight this one, tonight. From the website:

Kurdistan-The Other Iraq

Have you seen the Other Iraq?

It's spectacular.

It's peaceful.

Welcome to Iraqi Kurdistan. Where democracy has been practiced for over a decade. It's not a dream. It's the other Iraq.

The people of Iraqi-Kurdistan invite you to discover their peaceful region, a place that has practiced democracy for over a decade, a place where the universities, markets, cafes and fair grounds buzz with progress and prosperity and where the people are already sowing the seeds of a brighter future.
*****

TL and Axis, watch these 30 second videos about Iraq (scroll down to the bottom of the link's page):
"Thank You"
"The Other Iraq"
"Share The Dream"

"Who? Kerry? Gore? I have twice the amount of boots on the ground time in Viet Nam as both of them -- COMBINED! By your words, that should make me more qualified than they are."-Lew Waters

Lew Waters you are more qualified than they are! I'd vote for you over them in a heartbeat!
:)

Saddam Made To Watch 'SOUTH PARK' Movie Repeatedly...

Ha!
:)

Seems some Republicans are now "cut and run defeatists" Shay of Connecticut the most recent to come out for a withdrawal plan... who will be next and as they all start to fall in line with Shay what will you then say?????

"Iraqi forces have been doing a very good job," he added.

I don't know about that. Optimistically, they battled Al-Sadr's and other militias to a stalemate yesterday (and I say optimistically because there were reports of militia-members executing soldiers in public after the Iraqi military members ran out of bullets) before a cease-fire was negotiated.

At least 100 people were killed across Iraq yesterday in a day of intense gun battles and suicide bombings, contradicting US military claims that the security situation in the war-torn nation was improving.

Independent Online

The problem with citing the downswing in violence the past few weeks in Baghdad as a sign of good things to come in Iraq is that the US military is responsible for that.

Right now, the US presence there is basically delaying the inevitable. The inevitable being the -- as Rumsfeld would say -- known unknown. What happens in Iraq after the US leaves will be the ultimate test for whether Bush's policy (spreading democracy in the ME using a false threat of Iraqi WMDs and nukes as a means to get support being the action) was a success or not.

There was a woman from the National Review on Meet the Press the other day who made a good point. Right now, there are really two options in Iraq:

A) Send more troops in, block foreign fighters and foreign aid from entering the country and really take it to the insurgency.

B) Set a time line for withdrawl and force the Iraqi government and army to step up and lead their country.

All the panelists on the show seemed to agree that what we can't follow is Bush's "stay the course" policy. It's stagnant. It's fueling the insurgency and it's not stepping up the pressure on Iraqis to stand on their own.

We can keep the training wheels on for years, but there's no guarantee that the insurgency would ever go away.

If we set a timetable for withdrawl and Iraqis are face to face with the specter of life without US military protection, maybe they'll form a truly strong central government with an army that will defend itself.

Or maybe they won't. But if they can't do that 4 or 5 years on after the invasion, are they ever? Is Iraq better off as three separate nations?

These are the questions we need to start asking. What we're doing now is not working.

The problem with citing the downswing in violence the past few weeks in Baghdad as a sign of good things to come in Iraq is that the US military is responsible for that.

Right now, the US presence there is basically delaying the inevitable. The inevitable being the -- as Rumsfeld would say -- known unknown. What happens in Iraq after the US leaves will be the ultimate test for whether Bush's policy (spreading democracy in the ME using a false threat of Iraqi WMDs and nukes as a means to get support being the action) was a success or not.

There was a woman from the National Review on Meet the Press the other day who made a good point. Right now, there are really two options in Iraq:

A) Send more troops in, block foreign fighters and foreign aid from entering the country and really take it to the insurgency.

B) Set a time line for withdrawl and force the Iraqi government and army to step up and lead their country.

All the panelists on the show seemed to agree that what we can't follow is Bush's "stay the course" policy. It's stagnant. It's fueling the insurgency and it's not stepping up the pressure on Iraqis to stand on their own.

We can keep the training wheels on for years, but there's no guarantee that the insurgency would ever go away.

If we set a timetable for withdrawl and Iraqis are face to face with the specter of life without US military protection, maybe they'll form a truly strong central government with an army that will defend itself.

Or maybe they won't. But if they can't do that 4 or 5 years on after the invasion, are they ever? Is Iraq better off as three separate nations?

These are the questions we need to start asking. What we're doing now is not working.

"Saddam Made To Watch 'SOUTH PARK' Movie Repeatedly...

Ha!
:)"
yeah, that's pretty funny.

Deleted - no link provided, a search of the VFW website produced no such article. Please provide link before re-posting.

OrangeAlert... please don't confront these neocons with facts and truth.. They are true believers and facts will never sway them.. they will just answer by calling you a liberal defeatist and go their way.,. thinking they have put you in your place and rejoice in their beliefs and rightousness

Ohio,

Well, as you can see, orangalert's post has been deleted - because I could not find that article anywhere on the VFW's website. If you're going to provide facts to use against us, then we will, well, want to see the facts. Find a link to the article, and then re-post.

Tom,

A timetable for withdrawal is just plain and simple dumb - once the enemy knows we're going to leave by a date certain, they'll simply cease their attacks and build up their forces for the post-US showdown. If you really want a civil war in Iraq, then a timetable for a US withdrawal is the way to get it.

We're doing it the right way - you guys on the left, and quite a lot of people on the right, seem to forget that for the past year we've been securing Anbar province and other parts of Iraq...don't hear too much about them these days, do ya?

Ah, well: if by this point you can't see what the plan has been all along, then there's really no hope for you.

mark,

will you then repost my original comment?
the exact links can be found here:
http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=2373
here
http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=2362
and here:
http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=3562

this was in answer to lew's post about his apparent knowledge of the satisfaction the VFW organization has with this administration's actions with regard to the war, et al.. perhaps his post feels differently but from what i have been reading (directly from the VFW website), there does exist PLENTY of discontent with bush policies relating to this war and to way the bush admin treats veterans...

so i'm just pointing this out.

http://www.vfwdc.org/NLS/Testimony/2006/cic.htm

well mark here is a link that backs up most all of Orangealerts facts... you clearly did not look too hard or either you did not want to find it. if you want more links please let me know and I will pass them along, but I assume you are smart enough to do the research yourself

for some reason i cannot post at all now?

thanks ohio - i've actually posted the links a few times but my comments now appear to be blocked outright....

For the final year of the Clinton administration and their VA budget, the first increase since 1996;

http://veterans.house.gov/news/106/2-7-00.htm

notice now that mark has the link he is very quiet,,, as I said don't confuse the neocons with facts

To Lew Waters: Having served in Kosovo myself with the Norwegian contigent, I'd be interested in hearing your honest opinion/analysis of the ground-situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. A friend of mine recently returned from the Afghan theatre (he's special forces, mountainhunter) and from his description it sounds like the americans are really really screwing up the hearts and minds-part of the project, with a lot of car-accidents and random shooting because of the IED-scare. The same, as I understand, is happening in Iraq, with an incredibly low ratio of ground-troops who know any arabic at all having to communicate with the local populace on a general basis. Is this a correct assessment?

Being military, do you agree with me that the sentence " ..as long as we sustain our military in Iraq, absolute victory is assured..." is a downright crazy thing to say, since there isnt even any victory-parameters for the current conflict? Absolute victory?

I would love to discuss with someone rational in the republican camp, but everytime I try they either call me names and shout a lot of abuse, or they quite simply shut up, in fact they remind me a lot of this kiss-ass lieutenant I served under in Kosovo who didnt give a shit about the mission but only thought about himself, and would go hysterical if criticized by professionals. Thats what I see in the current republican movement a lot too, this shouting bullying tactic to cover proffesional incompetence. Any viewpoints? Or am I just a defeatist Hussein supporter of islamofascism?

Martin, I didn't serve in Iraq or Afghanistan, Just Viet Nam and Germany, before Ft. Bragg, where I finally ETS'd and got out (thanks to Carter's first act in office).

I have talked to others at the VFW that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and they feel we are doing good work in both. Perfect? No. So, from those I’ve talked to, your assessment is mistaken. It doesn’t mean misdeeds don’t happen. Every war produces them.

Absolute Victory? I guess it would depend on just how the term is defined. Will we accomplish it as we did over Germany and Japan in WW2? No. We didn’t invade either country to conquer them, but to liberate them. Ultimately, the victory I look forward to will be the Iraqi and Afghani peoples standing on their own and freely deciding for themselves. A lofty goal? You bet. But worth it, I feel.

Since you did Kosovo, you must know there has been no real victory there, just a cessation of hostilities, for now and as long as NATO Troops are in between the two. Same in Korea the last 50 years. In Viet Nam, we followed the same basic policy suggested by the left Democrats today and look what that outcome was. Any victory went to our Communist enemy and millions of innocent Vietnamese died.

If NATO up and left Kosovo or we did the same in Korea, do you think the opposing sides would still be peaceful? I don’t.
Permanently remaining in either Iraq or Afghanistan is not what I see as the administrations goal. We may be there a long time, but I don’t see it as being indefinite. This is a different war; unlike any other we have fought. It isn’t against a country, but an ideology that is invading countries. An Ideology bent on world domination. Not only of the west, but also of fellow Muslims that do not follow their skewed version of the Qu’Ran and Sharia Law.

Unfortunately, there are many on the left that fail to see this enemy as the evil they are or what their goals are. If there will be a victory, I wish it to be for us and the freedom seeking Iraqis and Afghanis, not the Al Qaeda or Hezbollah sort of Muslims under the dictates of Iran’s Ahmanutjob.

As far as to what you are, that is up to you. Packing up and leaving Iraq today or in the near future will ensure the terrorists win their victory. Anyone thinking they can appease these evildoers is just fooling themselves. We have nothing they want, just their dominance over us, or our death.

Orange,

I didn't look in early 2005 - which is when your link was created. For crying out loud, this is late 2006...you might want to get with the program...especially that bit of the program which includes the fact that VA funding has gone up from $47.4 billion under Clinton to $65.3 billion under Bush.

The VFW is a fine organization - my father is a life member - and because they are a great advocate for veterans, they always paint the VA budget in the worst possible light in order to gain political leverage to get even more in the budget for veterans. As far as I'm concerned - good for them, and keep at it. But I also know, since my father is a disabled veteran, that his benefits have markedly increased since President Bush took office.

You really won't be able to sell the absurd notion that President Bush has been unfriendly to America's veterans - we who are veterans just know better.

Waters, first of all: Thank you for a sane response. much appreciated, and an interesting platform for discussion. (I hope the admins allow some mild profanity in the text below, its constructive not angry ;-))

First of all, I agree with you that packing up and leaving the Iraqi theatre is plain stupidity. Second, I do not fancy the democrats either. From a norwegian point of view, they are both groups of arrogant capitalist greedy corrupt incompetents. Something started has to be finished, and Iraq (AND Afghanistan!) has just started. The matter in question is how to finish it, and to hopefully make it stay quite finished, or at least returned to pre-11/9 tension levels. Do we agree that the US is not on an empire-building mission in the Middle East?

My main profesional concern with the current doctrine of operation of the US forces and their allies is quite simply: You kill too many civilians because of your standard military doctrine of "field-of-fire" tactics. The US Army seems to me to be designed as an offensive weapon, not as a holding force. We saw it in Kosovo: Were we used to patrol the villages, drinking tea fer chrissakes, with the local old guys and helping out shooting stray dogs, the yanks did the whole "secure-the-area-for-hostiles" routine. Secure perimeters, control fire-zones, dadada. Alienating everyone, like angry police.

Now, in Iraq this has become a necessity, but it didnt have to be that way. And that is why I am really pissed of at your current administration, because handled competently the liberation (as opposed to invasion) of Iraq could have gone really smoothly. If the US had had a backup-force of trained peacekeepers (as opposed to combat-grunts) as a second wave, then everything could have been different. Instead you got the goddamn mercenaries in like a fly-swarm (Blackwater, etc.) and you had suddenly the goddamn national guard reservists doing convoy security. Your corrupt greedy little profiteers came in on the tail-skirts of their goddamn corrupt politicians. Then you got Fallujah: You actually more or less tried to do to the proudest sunni city what Assad did to Hama, a mass eradication of a whole city. Now that was a stupid thing to do, and it has cost you, possibly, the conflict.

I think you do wrong in lumping Hezbollah, Al Queada, Hamas and Iran together into a unified field of Islamic Fascism. In several villages in Lebanon (including Quana, where the massacres/civilian casualties took place), they still celebrate the Norwegian national day. Because so many of our soldiers married Hezbollah widows. They are not fundamentalists, except when they get angry. Much like americans (I hope), with their scary oubursts about Collective Will and National Pride and God On Your Side. Even Iran has a deeply rational core, though they seem to be flirting with fascism quite strongly. But, seriously: When the US starts out calling its campaign a crusade, and when the agressiveness of the christian element of the US administration is as it is, do you wonder they fight back using the same style?

You cant oppose an enemy if you see him as a monster was one of the first things we learned in Norwegian peacekeeping academy. During the 30 years the Norwegian Army has been doing it (including 20 years in Lebanon), we have suffered approx 20 casualties because of hostilities. It has to do with preparing well and not coming to dominate but to facilitate (?, correct english?). You current administration seems to us here as a bunch of lying corrupt bastards who put profit into their pockets and their friends, instead of doing the job properly.

Argh, if you served you know what I mean. The whole shock and awe thing doesnt work against people who have been warriors for two thousand years, it just pisses them off. If you were an Iraqi, how would you react? Your whole concept of "the enemy" relies on propaganda-images, not local knowledge, and that is why you recieve propaganda-images back is my point. If the US actually tried t be a peacekeeper instead of an agressor, I think a lot of subjects could be solved over the next 20 years, when the muslim internet-generation gets a taste for western decadenc...

Viewpoints?

Martin, due to the hour I can't address this as I would like, I have to be at work in a few hours and frankly, I'm tired, LOL.

First off, feel free to visit my blog, Right in a Left World if we can't continue this here. It's about to scroll off soon anyways. Just post anywhere and I'll pick it up and if need be, start a new thread.

That being said, we are going to disagree on many aspects. Like I said, I didn't do Kosovo so can't speak of that conflict. However, there are vast differences in our Militaries as have been noted throughout history. We are a different people and see many things differently and some the same, just the way it is.

Our Military tactics differ greatly often. We saw it in WW1 and WW2 and yes, there was friction between the services of differing nations, but they were put aside and free nations, as well as those who wanted their nations freed, joined forces, accepted the differences and fought the common enemy. We prevailed in defeating Nazi Germany and Japan.

There is no such thing a war perfectly fought; they are all a series of blunders with the side making the least winning. At least, that has been the way it was up until now.

One thing I will fault Europe on is their failure to see this enemy as he is. You may not agree that Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Iran and such are the same extremist, but we will have to agree to disagree there. I see them all as extremist Islamofascists bent on world domination with their common enemy being not just America, but the Western Culture in general, including Norwegian.

No argument that opportunists take advantage of wars for profit. That too has always been and frankly, I don't know how to stop them as many do provide a necessary service in rebuilding and even security at times. I disagree that the current administration is behind them and enabling them. Much ado has been made over Halliburton, but who else was up and ready to supply the services they do? When it was discovered a subsidiary of theirs was gouging, it was this administration that put a stop to it and fined them. In Viet Nam, we had civilian workers helping us with our helicopters and they made extremely good money for serving in a combat zone and were just as subject to attack as we were with little defense. I had no qualms with the ones I met.

Bear in mind, you are not dealing with "reasonable" people with the Islamofascists. Many have had a taste of western culture and for whatever reason, rejected it in favor of the religious teachings of some very misguided people. Religious zealots, regardless of religion, are very difficult to deal with. Surrender isn't in their code, not the hard core ones. So, the only choice left is to smoke them out and destroy them.

The challenge is going to be to entice the rest that haven't fallen fully under the spell of the Islamofascists to look to western culture, without offending their religion and embrace the culture. A lofty task, for sure. To be honest, I think it is being done already, but our medias fail to report it as they have their anti-war agenda to promote.

In closing for now, I will state that these terrorists are just as big of a danger for European Nations, if not more so, than they are for America. Europeans that think they can be appeased or coddled and reasoned with are fooling themselves, again. Instead of opposing the administration in this war, Europe needs to join forces, even with differing tactics, and help stamp out these terrorists. Make no mistake about it, this is a World War against a misled ideology that desires to enslave the entire world under their sick version of Islam, or kill us.

MartinK,

I'm curious to hear what your opinion is for the current course the US should take in Iraq.

A lot of what you said makes sense to me, and whole-heartedly agree with you point about not making out the enemy to be some monster. If you've ever seen "Fog of War," one of the lessons Robert McNamera learned from Vietnam is empathize with your enemy.

I think it's obvious at this point that "wiping out" al-qaeda or hezbollah or Iran is just not a viable option.

That being said, what should be done in Iraq?

To me this could have been a liberation, but what occurred was an invasion. To call it a liberation implies there was a plan in place to help build-up the post-invasion country. We pushed the invasion because of this trumped-up WMD threat and essential made it a US-only operation.

I agree, if we had waited, had the UN play a roll in the reconstruction, made it seem like less a US plan to turn Iraq into its own Syriana and more a world-wide effort to free the Iraqis from Hussein, things could have gone much differently.

But getting back to now. It seems to me that you believe the US is fueling the insurgency by its presence in Iraq; by how it is operating.

Do you believe a withdrawl of US troops within a year or so to bodering countries and phasing in UN peacekeepers is a viable option?

To me, at this point UN peacekeepers would be seen in the same light at US solders. Occupiers. And the US has f*cked iraq so badly, who says the UN will send its troops into that kind of situation?

Or do you believe the US should keep its troops there indefinitely, perhaps reducing its levels and changing its tactics.

Just curious.