Basra Violence Proves Withdrawal Strategy Doesn’t Work

Loading

Last year, two polar opposite strategies were tried in Iraq.

  1. President Bush changed commanders, changed to a counter-insurgency strategy, and sent an additional 30,000 troops to quell violence in Iraq that had been set ablaze by Al Queda. This change in course reduced violence dramatically, and while the not all of the political objectives have been met yet, most have been, and the outlook for further national reconciliation grows more positive with each passing day.
  2. On the other hand, the British forces in the south of Iraq chose to start withdrawing troops. The British people were tired of the war (as is everyone), and there was much political clout to be had by marketing a ‘leave and things will be better’ theory. Well, troop levels dropped, and violence increased. Shortly after Britain announced plans to withdraw the rest of its troops, Muqtada al Sadr ended his cease-fire and sectarian fighting erupted (though a far cry from what it was in 2006).

In the areas where the US forces had increased and changed strategies, the violence is minimal.

In the areas where British forces pulled out and drew down force levels…violence is almost uncontrollable.

This shows beyond any doubt that a strategy that is based on timelines for withdrawal (as the British tried) fails. It reinforces the historical pattern that withdrawals set off violence (see also withdrawal of US force levels in 2003 after the invasion, 2004 before the US election, in 2005 after the Iraqi elections, and now the British premature evacuation.

The point isn’t that more troops are needed, or that an indefinite occupation is needed, but rather that troop levels MUST be determined by conditions on the ground, and not by political conditions at home. The entire strategy of an insurgent is to degrade the enemy’s will to fight-not the will of their frontline forces, but that of their supporting populations. It works. Now, people are dying (again) because force levels were changed by politicians marketing pipedreams of faux peace rather than explaining the historical pattern that is reality.

Just pullout and everything will be better is a plan that doesn’t work. Today, many people will die in Basra, Iraq to prove that. Will those calling for immediate, unconditional withdrawal take notice? Will anyone who advocates withdrawal instead of pursuit of success think about what strategies work?

Iraqi militia success means Britain must fight – or admit failure
Richard Beeston, Foreign Editor

British forces, who can probably cobble together an armoured battle group of a few hundred soldiers, may well be asked to intervene should the Iraqi offensive fail. If that happens, any hope of the withdrawal promised by Gordon Brown last year of another 1,500 British troops this spring will have to be shelved until Basra can be stabilised.

It may even be necessary to reinforce the British contingent with more combat troops, something that the Ministry of Defence can ill afford as it prepares for the fighting season in Afghanistan.

The only other option would be for Britain to admit finally that it has lost the fight in southern Iraq. That would mean an ignominious withdrawal and handing over control of Basra to the Americans, who grudgingly would have to take over responsibility for the south. As American officers and officials have privately made clear, much of today’s problems in Basra can be traced back to Britain’s failure to commit the forces necessary to control Basra and southern Iraq in general.

Whereas President Bush’s “surge” tactic of sending 30,000 reinforcements to central Iraq has succeeded in bringing down the level of violence in Baghdad and Anbar province, the Americans believe that the gradual withdrawal of British troops from the south has had the opposite effect, a point that Mr al-Maliki and his soldiers are discovering to their cost on the streets of Basra today.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
32 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Quite simply, it’s the Republicans’ view of foreign policy vs. the Democrats’ view.  This is part and parcel why McCain will embarrass both Obama and Clinton in any debate where terrorism is an issue.

So much for using dhimmitude as a battle plan.

Fair enough Scott, but the troop surge is nothing more than a tourniquet.  A tourniquet by itself has to be released at some point.  It is meant only to provide time for real corrections to be made to a wound.  Those corrections were the responsibility of the Iraqi Government whom to date have done little in preventing future violence, let alone national reconciliation.  Look, I am not for a pull-out under these tumultuous circumstances.  But this situation is indeed a Civil War.  You can cry proxy Iran stuff all day but this fight is Shiite against Shiite period.  And for crying out loud, the Maliki Government can not even decide how to spend their multi billion dollar budget surpluses.  How the heck are these idiots expected to quell a frickin’ Civil War?  Sure.  Let’s settle Basra down now and we are right back to playing Whack-a-mole.  Did the bribe money run out or something?  What a frickin’ mess…

Iraqi officers consider the British to be cowards and sissies. They’re (British) hiding behind the fence at the airport.

Even while the British were "in control", they weren’t. Sadr and his crew flourished. Time for the Americans & Iraqi’s to step in and get the job done right. It’s too bad this wasn’t done earlier.

The "insurgents" are massed and fighting a pitched battle.
I have a feeling that Maliki has the Rats cornered.
And just stay tuned; this may be a last ditch stand.

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 03/28/2008 – A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2008/03/web-reconnaissance-for-03282008.html

It is proof that the Bush Administratino’s stated goal of a stable, centrally governed Iraq is a complete failure.  And that America is now arming, training and paying for all sides in a multi-party civil war that will last possibly for decades.  it is evidence that the lack of planning for transition and occupation, as opposed to that which went into the planning after WW II, was so poor that thousands have died, and thousands more will die.

But Conservatives, with their "Bush can do no worng" will refuse to lay any of these consequences to Geroge W. Bush’s incompetence.  Instead, since there is still at least one "holdover" government employee in the federal government from the Clinton days, it will all be Bill Clinton’s fault.

   http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/03/iraqi_troops_switch_sides_fight_with_madhi_army/ Abu Iman barely flinched when the Iraqi Government ordered his unit of special police to move against al-Mahdi Army fighters in Basra. His response, while swift, was not what British and US military trainers who have spent the past five years schooling the Iraqi security forces would have hoped for. He and 15 of his comrades took off their uniforms, kept their government-issued rifles and went over to the other side without a second thought.  
This is a disgrace.  And all the Conservative, "it’s someone else’s fault" will not hid it.  This same situatin will happen throughout Iraq the day we drop under the current 140,000 troop level, for at least the next five or ten years.

And Conservatives just love this idea.  In fact they, with John McCain in full support, want to start yet another war like this one in three-times larger Iran.

Why do Conservatives hate America so much?

(Go ahead, thrrow all the accusations back at me you want.  But I am outraged that We are spending $3 billion a week, and sending our soldiers to die for a government that will NEVER be able to govern Iraq, no matter how many feel-good items the White House sends out.)

Yeah your right. Even tho’ over 70% or more of the Iraqis have no confidence in our abilities to do anything right for them and see our presence as an occupation and want us to leave, and half thinking it’s ok to attack us– they should grin and bear it.

We need to stay to fix the 4 million plus refugees we created due to our invasion, too; not to mention, after 5 years, still try to get that electricity and water back up to pre-war levels; and repairing the Iraqi brain-drain, and medical services.

But before all that, first we may need to do a Baghdady on Basra since the Brits won’t. We may need to wall it up, trench it down, quarter it off, and curfew it on. May also have to do it again in Mosul, too. A lot of insurgents!

Therefore, we must stay– for the people. Again, don’t mind them… or the Islamic and international communities …we know best (and it’s not just in our national interest either– it’s for them, too!). It’s being proved before our eyes that we should stay: The Pentagon said this week the Iraqi Army clashing with Sadr "is a byproduct of the success of the surge". Even tho’ it’s being measured in uncertain, unclear and indistinct strategic terms, it’s still working …just as certain as political reconciliation can work — we just have to eliminate and refugee the right people at the right numbers and political reconciliation can work.

We, therefore, need to stay for the people’s security.

We must stay for their elections as well as their security, too. God only knows what would happen if they voted in a theocracy… which could really happen if Sadr maintained power (which is why Maliki is going after him, and him alone, in Basra). And even if Maliki wins over Sadr, not just in Basra, we need to stay to beat him in Baghdad and Mosul. We don’t want that type of thinking mucking up the Iraqi parliament.

Then once we gutted him and that thinking, we may need may need to gut Hakim. We know he’s pretty cozy with those Iranians. He may be moderate now, chatting up with Cheney, but we can’t turn out back on those guys.

So we gotta stay, despite near everyone telling us to leave. As a matter a fact if things keep up the way their going we may be the only ones left …and problem solved! Then we will have proved the surge really worked.

Nice posting!

I wrote on exactly this today, with reference to the thousands of peaceful protesters exercising their democratic rights in Baghdad yesterday, and the demonization campaign of the left:

"What we are seeing is exactly as President Bush declared in his Iraq address yesterday, that "sometimes it requires grass-roots politics to get the folks in central government to respond."

This is true, as we can see from the pictures and media reports from the scene. But to acknowledge these facts would be to destroy the main antiwar Democratic talking point: That Iraq’s been the greatest foreign policy blunder in history, that the country’s falling apart, and that the current outbreak of violence demands nothing less the unconditional withdrawal.

The current military operations against the Mahdi army is troubling, but it is not a setback to the long-term consolidation of the Iraqi democratic regime. The peaceful protests on the Baghdad street attest to that."

Interestingly, you post this;

President Bush changed commanders, changed to a counter-insurgency strategy, and sent an additional 30,000 troops to quell violence in Iraq that had been set ablaze by Al Queda. This change in course reduced violence dramatically, and while the not all of the political objectives have been met yet, most have been, and the outlook for further national reconciliation grows more positive with each passing day.

Then this:

The point isn’t that more troops are needed, or that an indefinite occupation is needed, but rather that troop levels MUST be determined by conditions on the ground, and not by political conditions at home.

I say it’s interesting because what promted Bush’s change in strategy wasn’t the conditions on the ground.  They had been deteriorating for years while Bush kept up the "stay the course" mantra…right up until the Dems cleaned house in Nov. 2006.

Re: "Therefore, we must stay– "

So, what you are saying is that, since the Bush Administration has completely bungled the occupation of Iraq after five years, the only solution is, "to keep on doing it"?

The Bush team has unveiled half a dozen "new strategies" in Iraq.  Each time it bought them another "the next six months will be crucial" delay in a reconing.  (to the point that six months has been renamed "One Friedman Unit" in honor of the pundit who has said it most often).

When is it finally going to be clear that the Bush Administration CANNOT do it, if they have another Friedman Unit or, if we have a President McCain, eight more Friedman Units.  Since John McCain has wedded himself to the Bush Administration Iraq policies 100%.

Iraq already is al Qaeda’s training grounds (while the leadership sits safely in Pakistan/Afghanistan).
Iran already dominates the central Iraqi government as well as the region, thanks to its greatest rival being taken out by the United States.
The worldwide image of the United States already has been irreparably tarnished by Abu Graibe (even if we are not as bad as Saddam was and the lowest levels of the troops who took part were punished, which appears to be the alibi we hear).
American already is bleeding itself white, to the tune of $3 billion a week (equal to replacing about six of the collapsed Minneapolis bridges every week).

I’ll repeat a cliche here, "The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing, and hoping for a different outcome".

By that definition, "Stay the Course" is, in my opinion, insanity.

And saying that we HAVE to do it is not sufficient.  At some point we will HAVE TO stop.  And, if we can set a firm timetable now, my opinion is that perhaps the Iraqis will finally divide their country up and go on, without depending on America to pay all the militias and supply weapons and training to every party in this multi-party civil war.  And, if they don’t, what makes us think that another ten years will change their minds?

Occupying Iraq for the next ten or twenty years, hoping the the next Friedman Unit will cause those leading the country to do anything different than they have for the last one does not fit my definition of sanity.  After all, the militia leaders are the big winners right now:  They have  their local power base, their personal army, their own little territory:  And the United States is footing the bill.

And I’m sorry if you declare that I Hate America or Want The Terrorists to Win (IMO theyalready have) for believing that.

CentFla, to call what’s going on in southern Iraq now a "civil war" in the same sense as that description has been used by the Democrats, namely a supposed civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites is kinda like switching from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" and then pointing at any climate anomaly and saying "I told you so."

We can debate about how wise the US Iraq/Iran policy was since the US first helped out Saddam in his fight with Iran, but it seems very clear that withdrawing now and leaving 2/3rds of Iraq to fall to Iran is hardly in US interest. I see the situation in Basra as a thing of beauty: moderate Shiites killing really bad Shiites while exposing the weak spots in the moderate Shiite army when the US still has enough troops in the country to work on fixing the weak spots, in the short term and the long term.

With the right imagination the potential of a US-friendly capable Shiite Army is almost unlimited. IF we get a President who is capable of thinking broadly, this army can be turned on various enemies of the US, in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and possibly even Iran. It’s definitely worth it for a host of reasons besides this one to slowly improve this unwieldy beast to the point of usefulness. The alternatives, with Iran being what it is and where it is are too ghastly to contemplate by anyone other than Obama.

Please explain how anything about this can be considered "positive".
  http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/03/iraqi_troops_switch_sides_fight_with_madhi_army/ Abu Iman barely flinched when the Iraqi Government ordered his unit of special police to move against al-Mahdi Army fighters in Basra. His response, while swift, was not what British and US military trainers who have spent the past five years schooling the Iraqi security forces would have hoped for. He and 15 of his comrades took off their uniforms, kept their government-issued rifles and went over to the other side without a second thought.
 

This is a positive step becasue the Shi’a are fighting the Shi’a militia of Al Sadr and his band of thugs in Basra.  The British malfeasance in the South has brough this on themselves.  The South was not quelled like the Baghdad area is before they set a time to leave.

One report of people switching sides is really going to destroy all of what we have achieved Steve. Come on, you are smarter than that.  That is like taking one sentence out of a report and saying Saddam had nothing to do with Al Queda, oops I forgot you did say that.

There is no Civil War either. This is the people that want a unified Iraqi Government against Mookie who is backed by Iran.  Did you see that the missiles coming into the Green Zone are Iranian made. The IEDs are mostly made in Iran also. This is a fight for the freedom ofthe Iraqi people, and it is not Shi’a vs. Sunni.  It is Shi’a vs Iranian backed Shi’a militants.

And this perfectly shows that the "surge" works. Without the troops that quelled Baghdad and AL Anbar, wewould havethe same storyin the North, but with the British government acting like Chamberlain in WWII,theyare leaving the South of Iraq to the Militants backed by the Quds force of Iran.  If you cannot see this, then you need to start getting some history lessons and read up on military strategies.  Becauseif you think that cutting and running will have any kind of positive outlook in Iraq,Igot a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Also, tosay that we think that "Bush can do no wrong" is an absolute idiotic staement to say.  Most of us have been after Bush for not actually going after the enemies in Iraq.  The militaryhas had its hand tied from the beginnning of this war. We need to finish it and let the military do waht they do best, break things and kill people.  But we have been way to soft on the military side of this conflict.  It is like the UN took over our military and made them lay down their arms and not fight back the way they could easily do.

Google Lt Gen Elphinstone.   Or as wags in te British Army put it  Elphy Bey.

HE retreated fom Kabul and lost 14,000 men because he retreated.

Obama Bey?

He won’t leave Iraq. No way.   He’s dialed back the promises for a withdrawal.   he’s faked out the antiwar dems with promises he never intended to keep.

Re: "One report of people switching sides is really going to destroy all of what we have achieved Steve. Come on, you are smarter than that"

That was "one" example because it was the "one" that had witnesses to describe it  to the world.  How many other times was there no one watching as they changed their uniforms?

Re: "And this perfectly shows that the "surge" works. Without the troops that quelled Baghdad and AL Anbar, wewould havethe same storyin the North,"

And that is exactly what will happen, based on the fact that on one has changed thier positions, the minute the US does leave.  Meaning we will have 150,000 troops in Iraq, forever.

Re: "Also, tosay that we think that "Bush can do no wrong" is an absolute idiotic staement to say.  Most of us have been after Bush for not actually going after the enemies in Iraq.  The militaryhas had its hand tied from the beginnning of this war. We need to finish it and let the military do waht they do best, break things and kill people"

How many Iraqi’s will we have to kill in order to save them?

Isn’t that like, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it"?

On to criticism of Geroge w. Bush.

Everywhere else on this site I observe outrage that a Pennsylvania memorial site might look like a star and crescent.  Or that some Liberal somewhre said something stupid (and I’ll certainly admit there is no lack of that).  Why do I not see a single Conservative thread here decrying the fact that thousands have died, including Americans, because President Bush allowed an internal squabble within his Cabinet (Secretaries Rumsfeld and Powell, with interference from VP Cheney) to cost that many lives and that many resources, and allow a war to start that will, no matter who is elected President, cost lives and treasure for another decade.

With that kind or price, why isn’t ther a thread of that, instead of one yukking it up about Hillary Clinton’s "Hand me my broom, oaf!" comments?

My conclusion has been that Conservatives will only admit they disagree withgeorge W. Bush when congfronted by someone such as myself.

So leaveing will help even though what I said waht happened in Basra will happen over the whole country.  So just give up now.  Wow that is an intelligent comment. That is exactly what I was trying to point out to you.  If we leave before the job is done, we will have Basra over whole country.  this has nothing to do with why wegot into Iraq, if we leave now, how in the world would anyone trust us ever again.  We already screwed the Iraqis after the First Gulf War, so we do it again. then the whole area will be against us.  that would just be great. And guess what we are still in Germany, Japan, and Korea.  So was that a quagmire also?????? And are we controlling thier governments??? We stayed in those countries to let them get a hold of thier own country and stayed to protect their freedoms also. We did not get involved in thier governments, execptat the ed of WWII in  Japan, and some in Germany. But eventually they became democracies and are freedom loving countries like us.

And to fight over what quabble that Rumsfeld and Powell now is behind us.You move on and adapt. that is waht the military does, unless you think that every war and battle goes exactly to plan. I guess you never saw the Battle of the Bulge, The Longest Day, or anyWWII movies. If that was the case we would have stoppped at Normandy, that was a complete screw up from the beginning, but we stayed with it and eventually defeated Hitler.

And that Cresent that faces Mecca is an abomination to those that were on that flight.  Read up on the Flight 93 Memorial and see the Magreb and similarities to what go into a Mosque.  It will be a eye opener if you read into what the geometry and symbols of Islam are going into a Memorial in the USA for passengers that saved us from more harm on that day.

If you believe that we only go after Bush and McCain or any Republicans only when you chime in you have not read most of the Right Wing Blogs for some time.  Do you remember the Port Deal, Shamnesty, McCain-Feingold, etc. etc,etc.?????

I know Steve you are just a great scholar on the conservative mind.  I mean you have us dead on all the time. Just look at how many times we agree with you.

Igor that is two of the strangest things that I have read in a long time.  Your circular logic which does not apply to me not withstanding, you are wrong.  If Shiites from Iraq kill Sunnis this week and then other Iraqi Shiites next week – it is STILL a civil war on both counts.  You totally lost me when you hit the global warming thing or whatever…

And if it is a good thing to you that many thousands and thousands of civilians die in Iraq then you must be an incredibly happy person.  Unfortunately this whole war was supposed to be in OUR national interests and it has done nothing to make us safer despite the thousands of lives lost, tens of thousands maimed and trillions and trillions of dollards pledged. 

We could have made you happier and killed lots more people much cheaper. 

And Stix, where the weapons come from do not matter.  These are Iraqis killing each other.  You have to be in a time warp to claim that the majority of those killing each other are from other countries anymore.  The foriengers came to kill us not Iraqis.  That was so two years ago.  The psycho Iranians and supplier far fewer weapons than we are but this is still a Civil War that we are trying to quell.

Philadelphia Steve,

my post was sarcasm.

(One more reason we should stay is the free balloons) … nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

As always, Steve and Doug completely hijack a thread and bastardize it with their bias and complete disdain for their political opponents. Can either of you learn to be honest rather than continuously try and force feed us the false information that you guys constantly buy into just because it feeds your hyperpartisan super egoes?

First off, nobody knows what percentage of Iraqis like us and what percentage hates us. Anyone who makes the absurd claim that they do is just plain asinine. Anyone who tries to use polls to justify why he or she believes most Iraqis hate us and support the insurgents is shooting his or herself on the foot given the lack of credibility in those polls.

As mentioned multiple times in this blog as well as others from both sides of the political spectrum, the polls, studies, and political documents created by meda outlets that assess the ground situation in military areas of responsibility are all botched or tainted, as well as being biased to absurd extremes. 

A great example of a botched and tainted study would be the Lancet Study. Some good examples of biased polls would include the ABC, and BBC polls that Doug has cited before. Some really good examples of political documents whose authors tried to pass them off as ground assessments or intel assessments would be; the papers that Carl Levin claimed as being proof that no Al Qaeda members were in Iraq before the invasion and that they had no ties to Ba’ath members, and of course there is the recent NIE Report. All of these were disproven shortly after being made public, and some were even disproven before hand.

The papers that Levin doctored, claiming that there were no Al Qaeda members in Iraq was disproven two weeks before they were scheduled to be presented to the Senate Select Intel Commitee because the contents just didn’t add up. The NIE Report was disproven a few days after it’s release because it was based on the claims of Iranian officials loyal to President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and whom were partly responsible for the deaths of innocent people in Iraq, and Azerbaijan.

Overall, with these facts at hand, I have no clue why Steve and Doug constantly try to shove their vile down our throats. Forgive my choice of words. However, it is hard to not feel like they aren’t trying force feed their political creeds to us because they always bring up some of the talking points that they had brought up not too long before even after we had rebuttled them and had proven them to be false or unreliable, or both.

If Steve and Doug think that the claims they make will become accurate and their sources truthful after repeatedly stating them over and over again, then they must’ve drank too much kool-aid. Since in the real world, that isn’t the way things unfold. We don’t just tap our feet together and say "There is no place like home" and wind up from being completely lost to at home safe and sound!

"For those that fought (or fight) for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."

It’s coming to a point in time when and where there are those among us, the chaff in the wheat if you will, that needs be threshed from the grain.   And in my minds eye, the sooner the better.   There are many in our society that need to be made examples of, Pelosi, Mutha, Reid, Kennedy, and some that post here come to mind.

Assisting the Iraqi people in achieving/obtaing their freedom)s), while protecting America was the right thing to do (in my opinion).   Some of you feel differently.   So what.   That doesn’t mean my feelings are any less vaild than yours, and I’ll not bandy words with you that are foolish enough to think otherwise.

We have seen the results of leaving a task unfinished.   My heart cries out for those that many in this country have pulled the proverbial carpet our from under to include our own, and I wouldn’t want to see it again.   Give those who have laid their lives on the line for the freedoms of the Iraqis, and yes for this country, the opportunity to finish that task.

"Greater love has no man than this, that he would lay down his life for his friends", and I would take that a step farther, his fellow man.

Chet:

The weak link in your chain is equating invading Iraq with "protecting America" and fighting for the "freedoms…for this country."

How has the war in Iraq ever been about protecting America?  Our country was never threatened by Iraq.

And therein lies the weak link in your chain.   One dimensional thinking.

Re: "If we leave before the job is done, we will have Basra over whole country."
Please define "the job is done".
Once it was "find the WMD’s"
Then it was "build a shining light of democracy across the Middle East"

What is it now?  Excatly.  Not in broad generalizations.  And how many years (decades?) and lives and treasure are you willing to spend in order to get it?  (And if you answer is the stock "whatever it takes", then you are obviously willing to bankrupt our nation for your cause, which meets my definitin of a dangerous fanatic, so I would appreciate an exact number.

.

Re: "And to fight over what quabble that Rumsfeld and Powell now is behind us."

But the cost isn’t.  And Conservatives alwys deny accountability by "putting it in the past".  On a totally different different topic, Bill clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky is "in the past".  Has even one Conservative let that go?  No!

.

Re: "my post was sarcasm."
That’s cool.  I actually do appreciate humor once in a while. We shouldn’t always take ourselves so seriously. 

.

Re: "As always, Steve and Doug completely hijack a thread and bastardize it with their bias and complete disdain for their political opponents"

How did I hijack this thread?  Conservatives view of the civil war in Iraq consists of two views:
1. If violence is increasing, it is a sign that the US should stay ther forever.
2. If violence is decreasing, it is a sign the athe US should stay there forever.

One way or another, Conservatives are 100% wedded to the US occupying Iraq forever.  My point is that, as long as the US is an occuping force in Iraq, the civil war will last forever as well:  Because the US is training, equiping and paying all sides in this civil war, and taking casulties and intervening when one side or another starts to win too much (except for the central Iraqi government, which does not exist outside of theGreen Zone).

I was disagreeing with option 1 above, which was the theme of this thread.

And, I never made any claims that the government of Saddam Hussein had ZERO contacts with alQaeda, ever.  Just that he had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, which about 40+% of Republicans still insist.

I also never claimed ther were ZERO foreign fighters in iraq.  I jsut cited Pentago studies that put their composition fo the "insurgency" at less than 10%.

The evidence is thatIraqis are fighting a civil war that began shortly afte the Iraqi army disbanded (both by decree and by individual action) in 2003 and the Iraqi army weapons depots were left unguarded for months.  meanwhile the Bush Administration pretended for more than a year that nothign was happening and did nothing to stop the war when ther was even a slight chance of preventing it.  And for all those deaths and destruction since then, I hold Geroge W. Bush accountable:  Although Conservatives give him a free pass because in the federal government there was at least one employee who was a holdover from Bill Clinton.

.

Re: "Assisting the Iraqi people in achieving/obtaing their freedom)s),"

In the 2000 elections, George w. Bush sneered at "Nation Building".  Since he has obviously changed his mind, so have all conservatives.  That is why I assert that Conservatives take most (though not 100%) of their mental outlook from George W. Bush.  However if President Bush gets his (effective) thrid term through John McCain, then we will expect that transformation to be complete.

.

Re: "It’s coming to a point in time when and where there are those among us, the chaff in the wheat if you will, that needs be threshed from the grain.   And in my minds eye, the sooner the better.   There are many in our society that need to be made examples of, Pelosi, Mutha, Reid, Kennedy, and some that post here come to mind."

After separation, the chaff is usually physically destroyed.  Exactly what kind of "examples" are you proposing to make of thse people?  Are you suggesting something along the lines of Conservative hero Ann Coulter’s past suggestions?  Or are you too coy to be specific, and accountable?

And therein lies the weak link in your chain.   One dimensional thinking.

Please explain how Iraq threatened–or threatens now–my freedom.

Re: "Please explain how Iraq threatened–or threatens now–my freedom."

Because the images of Americans torturing Muslims in the confines of Abu Graibe are being shown to Muslim Children in Saudi sponsored schools throughout the Islamic world:  Raising a new generation who will always associate a "Crusader" mentality with Americans invading, occupying and torturing Muslims on behalf of a Fundamentalist Christian President.

And all the FoxNews alibis beamed at American audiences will do nothing to ameliorate it.

Chet when are YOU personally going to step up and do what you think needs to be done instead of just shooting your mouth off

:o)   I have.   I’ve served my country, was disabled in doing so, and received those recognitions normally provided to those that led or lead by example.   Upon returning I spent the next 30 plus years serving those that served our country, to include their spouses, children, and/or widows.

"For him who has bourne the battle. . . ."

Oh, and if I were able, I would do it all over again.   And you John Ryan?

Still waiting for you to explain your attack, Chet.

By the way, Chet.
No matter what else I believe regarding your opinoins, thank you for your service.

CentFla, I derive no satisfaction from innocent people being killed. My points were these:

-The Democrats, when they used the phrase “we need to get our troops out of a bloody civil war” were invariably referring to the the Sunni/Shia conflict (and sometimes the Kurd/Arab Sunni conflict). What’s is happening right now is actually much more like a Civil war, whereas what existed before was not, it was complex sectarian violence. If you take Obama’s llatest characterization of things, which seems to be borne out of ignorance and can be reduced to “see they are still fighting, we can never control them”, then yes it’s a failure. I believe he is profoundly wrong, and Iraq is getting better and better. It’s not a straight line, since there has been a long truce and now there is a battle. But pointing to what’s going on and claiming “same old same old” is disingenuous or misinformed.

-The Civil War that’s going on right now is the Government, which obviously has some relationship with Iran but is more on the side of law and order vs. another group that is clearly supported by Iran and is very destabilizing to law and order. It’s the last uncontrollable target in Iraq, and if and when it’s overpowered, Iraq will be peaceful barring direct aggression by Iran or dramatic and quick withdrawal of US troops.

-The war is progressing as I expected in the sense of exposing the weak points, in strategy and personnel of the Iraqi Army. Unlike the caricatures painted in the mainstream media, things are going well, although perhaps not as well as in Maliki’s most optimistic scenario.