Not a bad post Mark,I have to disagree with this: "We've got horrific enemies who hate us for what we are", I really believe it is definitely 'what we do'.
Allow me a brief rant before stating my own strategy.
For Iraq, I don't believe "stay the course" or "cut and run" is a good plan, or even is a plan. They are both labels, it's the most common political tool used to discredit your opponents view. I would describe it more along the lines of "back off I'm driving" and "Hey! your off the road again! let me drive now". Realistically, neither party is very good at describing the others strategy, simply because it's the others strategy.
The goal is a U.S. friendly democracy. Obstacles are plentiful, mostly armed civilians.
AK-47s are going for $200 each, as opposed to $50 each earlier. Every gun we buy is one less on the street. If we bought aggressively, paying more for them the price would keep going up making it harder for civilians to arm themselves. Polls suggest a number of Iraqi civilians support armed attacks against U.S. soldiers. These are potential combatants. Remember locks are meant to keep honest people honest, a lock wont stop a thief, the same logic applies here. Make it hard to buy the guns, and keep civilians civilians.
One major problem we have is, Iraq had a Sunni majority, probably because Saddam mostly killed Shia and Kurds. Now Iraq has a Shia majority government, and armed forces. This doesn't look right to me, and probably doesn't to them either, but thats not the major problem. The armed forces being mostly Shia have taken revenge for years of Sunni oppression. Sunni retaliate, Shia strike back, and the word gets around that this group is killing that group, and the divide grows. People who used to be tolerant of each other are becoming bitter enemies. A partial solution could be implementing quota's in the armed forces. If every unit was made up of equal amounts of Shia, Sunni and Turk, the armed forces wouldn't be as likely to commit acts of vengeance, and they would be less likely to be attacked.. Forcing them to work together would also provide a base of people more prone to tolerance, hopefully it would spread. Most remaining attacks would be the real enemies, rather than a growing civil conflict.
The real enemies are not dumb, they know the limits of the war. This is where the issue of the borders comes into play. The Iran border has been sited as a problem, and Iran accused of interfering, however with a Shia government in control, everything in Iraq is going well for Iran. The porous border problem goes both ways, the real enemies could just as easily escape to Iran as move in from there. Unfortunately relations with Iran have not been geared toward cooperation on securing the border. In fact based on something that happened long before either president was in power, we have no relations with Iran. This war would be a lot easier with the help of Iran, and threatening them over enriching uranium is not working. Refusing to talk to someone is not effective diplomacy.
As for our troops, their presence needs to be geared more toward humanitarian effort, securing the borders, and rebuilding.
I believe the number one problem is that the Iraqis have lost confidence, and I don't think any new plan will change that. The common man over there does not hate us, they hate our policies, policies toward Islam, Iran and Israel. Bush has also lost their trust, and is not likely to change any of the hated policies. This is why I believe it's time to let someone else do the driving.
The issue with Iran is important in resolving the problems in Iraq. The best way to neutralize an enemy is to make them your ally. I would offer direct talks on the condition he takes me fishing, making such a profound demand would open the door for dialog not possible through standard diplomacy. Regulated enrichment would be as verifiable and freezing enrichment, and would ensure the same security, without denying Iran of their right to technology. An alliance with Iran would also provide a better position in ensuring Israels security, and negotiating between Israel and Palestine.
Your childish attitude towards life will not prevail.
USA...which attitude is that exactly?
The attitude of removing a dictator so people can live life in freedom?
Or the one you guys support...getting knocked up and scrambling the baby's brains...now that sure is a "childish attitude towards life" is it not?
Not a bad post Mark,I have to disagree with this: "We've got horrific enemies who hate us for what we are", I really believe it is definitely 'what we do'.
Allow me a brief rant before stating my own strategy.
For Iraq, I don't believe "stay the course" or "cut and run" is a good plan, or even is a plan. They are both labels, it's the most common political tool used to discredit your opponents view. I would describe it more along the lines of "back off I'm driving" and "Hey! your off the road again! let me drive now". Realistically, neither party is very good at describing the others strategy, simply because it's the others strategy.
The goal is a U.S. friendly democracy. Obstacles are plentiful, mostly armed civilians.
AK-47s are going for $200 each, as opposed to $50 each earlier. Every gun we buy is one less on the street. If we bought aggressively, paying more for them the price would keep going up making it harder for civilians to arm themselves. Polls suggest a number of Iraqi civilians support armed attacks against U.S. soldiers. These are potential combatants. Remember locks are meant to keep honest people honest, a lock wont stop a thief, the same logic applies here. Make it hard to buy the guns, and keep civilians civilians.
One major problem we have is, Iraq had a Sunni majority, probably because Saddam mostly killed Shia and Kurds. Now Iraq has a Shia majority government, and armed forces. This doesn't look right to me, and probably doesn't to them either, but thats not the major problem. The armed forces being mostly Shia have taken revenge for years of Sunni oppression. Sunni retaliate, Shia strike back, and the word gets around that this group is killing that group, and the divide grows. People who used to be tolerant of each other are becoming bitter enemies. A partial solution could be implementing quota's in the armed forces. If every unit was made up of equal amounts of Shia, Sunni and Turk, the armed forces wouldn't be as likely to commit acts of vengeance, and they would be less likely to be attacked.. Forcing them to work together would also provide a base of people more prone to tolerance, hopefully it would spread. Most remaining attacks would be the real enemies, rather than a growing civil conflict.
The real enemies are not dumb, they know the limits of the war. This is where the issue of the borders comes into play. The Iran border has been sited as a problem, and Iran accused of interfering, however with a Shia government in control, everything in Iraq is going well for Iran. The porous border problem goes both ways, the real enemies could just as easily escape to Iran as move in from there. Unfortunately relations with Iran have not been geared toward cooperation on securing the border. In fact based on something that happened long before either president was in power, we have no relations with Iran. This war would be a lot easier with the help of Iran, and threatening them over enriching uranium is not working. Refusing to talk to someone is not effective diplomacy.
As for our troops, their presence needs to be geared more toward humanitarian effort, securing the borders, and rebuilding.
I believe the number one problem is that the Iraqis have lost confidence, and I don't think any new plan will change that. The common man over there does not hate us, they hate our policies, policies toward Islam, Iran and Israel. Bush has also lost their trust, and is not likely to change any of the hated policies. This is why I believe it's time to let someone else do the driving.
The issue with Iran is important in resolving the problems in Iraq. The best way to neutralize an enemy is to make them your ally. I would offer direct talks on the condition he takes me fishing, making such a profound demand would open the door for dialog not possible through standard diplomacy. Regulated enrichment would be as verifiable and freezing enrichment, and would ensure the same security, without denying Iran of their right to technology. An alliance with Iran would also provide a better position in ensuring Israels security, and negotiating between Israel and Palestine.
Falling gas prices just before an election proves that the price is not controled by the market, but by greedy corporations with an interest in keeping their Repuppetcans in office.
One major problem we have is, Iraq had a Sunni majority
Not sure where you got this, James. Best estimates put the Sunni portion of the Iraqi population at around 15-20%. Other than that, I don't disagree with much of what you wrote (now that's a first).
I can visualize Iran being an ally some day, but somehow I doubt that it will be as a result of Bush and Ahmadinejad going fishing together. I've seen estimates of the level of dissatisfaction among the Iranian people with their government at somewhere between 80 and 90%. Sooner or later the Mullahs will be turned out, and sanity will return. Hopefully it will be sooner rather than later and with minimal help from us. I'm confident that there is plenty going on behind the scenes of which you and I are unaware, and that the NYT hasn't leaked yet.
At least PA is going the right direction. Man on dog santoroum is down 12 points in the polls. Big support of Bush and the war. Wasn't that your presidential candiate that you wanted? http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Santorum_momentum_stalls_Casey_leads_by_0926.html
Most polls are a lot worse for this nut job.
There was a report on the news this evening about a "group of men", I'm not sure if they were troops or just delivery people, trying to get from point A to point B with some sort of delivery. I came in a bit late to get all of the details. These men were in Iraq.
But anyways, there were 3-5 transport trucks, and they took a wrong turn. As they started going down the road, a mob of people came out, firing guns and pelting their windshields with stones.
They got to the end of this road, and they realized it was a dead end. The one fellow, who was in truck 3 I do believe, had a dashboard camera aboard his vehicle.
So, they had to go back through this throng of savages. They got turned around and started going back, the man in truck 3 with the camera was going to pieces.
As they went back, truck 2 got hit by a land mine placed strategically in the road by the terrorists/Islamo Fascists. The lead truck proceeded to go on, leaving him and the man with the camera in his vehicle behind. This greatly upset the man with the camera, he was totally alone and surrounded by these Islamo Fascists ... I would be scared too.
These terrorists then proceeded to kill the man that was in the truck that was hit. The man in the vehicle with the camera was pleading desperately for help, he was going fanatic and told people over the radio numerous times that he was going to be killed. He radioed in that the driver of the blown up truck had been killed by a gunshot from one of the terrorists ...
This is HORRIFYING!!
Ladies and Gentleman, OUR DEMOCRATS, THE DEMOCRATS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ARE SUPPORTING THESE TYPES OF EVIL TRAVESTIES! ...
LET'S PUT A STOP TO OBSTRUCTION BY THE FAR-LEFT LIBERAL DEMOCRATS IN THIS COUNTRY!!!
Ladies and Gents, THERE ARE NO BOUNDS FOR THE FAR-LEFT IN THIS COUNTRY UNTIL THEY HAVE LITERALLY DESTROYED THIS NATION OF GOD FEARING PEOPLE AND CHANGED THEM INTO A BUNCH OF TERRORIST THUGS, DON'T LET IT HAPPEN!!
MAKE IT AN EFFORT AND A STRICT NECESSITY TO VOTE FOR REBPUBLICAN ONLY!!
*DO NOT* VOTE FOR THE EVIL MINDS OF TED KENNEDY, HELLARY CLINTON AND THE LIKE'S OF THESE SICK AND EVIL MINDED PEOPLE!!!
Jeremiah
Is diversity in opinion tolerated on this blog?
Mark,
According to your article, things were better in midsummer. The consumer confidence index was 107 in July compared to 104.5 now.