What a new idea... I've never heard anyone who didn't want America to leave Iraq (I don't care about ulterior plans, I just deal with what's being said). The difference is that some people want to succeed then leave, others seem to want to just run away and then whine about the defeat and blame people for it.
I am still going to bring the good news here, until the mission is accomplished Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
They seem to have achieved the majority of what most people seemed to have thought were their goals in the first place. The British have not, the Americans have not, the central government in Baghdad has not (depending on whose version of its "goals" one accepts). Just an observation.
Oh, come on, Ice. You can quibble over what you like, but the goal has always been the same: To leave a stable and functioning democracy in Iraq.
"Leave?" A unified Iraq? Whether allied with Iran or not? Whether under sharia law or not ? Regardless of oil policy ? So we are taking the merger or alliance of the Baghdad-allied officialdom around Basra with the Mahdi officialdom in the area as progress toward that goal. We are assuming that stability and "functioning democracy" are not mutually exclusive in the region. And so forth. That is all possible. It is not the only possibility.
countezero: "the goal has always been the same: To leave a stable and functioning democracy in Iraq." That is a lie. The war was launched on the pretext of a non-existent WMD threat. Installing democracies abroad is not the mission of the US armed forces. There is a complete disconnect over the mission in Iraq, while America procrastinates in addressing our failed mandate. We're trading lives, fortunes, and leverage for superficial face-saving and window-dressing that can never change the reality that Iraq is shattered.
The ultimate goal was to secure the interests of the US (which included promoting reform in the region) and this is certainly better achieved now than it was when Saddam was still there.
To be sure, the issue is nuanced. But the statement I made necessarily includes positive outcomes to such concerns. A stable and functioning democracy is not one in which the country is divided, factionalized or inappropriately allied with a foreign power. It also is not one that is an oppressive theocracy, with armed bands of zealots acting as lawmakers and peacekeepers. This seems obvious. I fail to see why you mention oil policy, beyond the larger role it plays in the above scenarios... Here we go, with your meaningless accusations again... What I said is not a "lie," because you and I are not even speaking about the same thing. I am speaking about the continued presence of American troops in Iraq after the fall of the Baathist regime (This thread is about the recent success of those occupying troops, not the origins of the war). We're still there because we are nation-building and want to leave a stable, functioning democracy. This, too, is obvious...
But the removal of Saddam was accomplished in '03. We were talking about the recent developments, whether they were "progress" or not. OK. Now we can address whether the recent developments represent progress toward that somewhat (as Hype pointed out) recently acquired and alleged goal. Does a decrease in local violence obtained by an arrangement with the Mahdi Army as described imply an approach toward a unified Iraq, or a retreat from even the idea of a unified Iraq, for example. That is not obvious. And the analysis is immediately affected by the implications of this new situation for oil delivery and development.
No, we're shooting for four grand. Thus far things have gone swimmingly but after that benchmark the whole operation will instantly become an unmitigated disaster that we can't drop fast enough.
Echo3, Were would we be in WWII if these weak sisters had been around then? What would the news have looked like the day after D-Day? 1465 KIA, 5138 WIA, and missing in action, all on one day, or even earlier at the Kasserine Pass, were there were 3,000 casualties, or at Paerl Harbor, 2,600 casualties, or the Battle of the Bulge, 19,000 American dead, in three days. Semper Fi, we both know how much it cost.
those were battles this is mostly occupation for someone who has claimed to be in the armed forces you don't seem to know the difference.
countezero: "We're still [in Iraq] because we are nation-building and want to leave a stable, functioning democracy. This, too, is obvious... No, it isn't obvious at all. It isn't obvious in the least to Iraqis. It isn't obvious to a growing number of Americans, either. GW Bush himself repudiated nation-building during his initial campaign. It's what separates the situation in Iraq from Buffalo Roam's strained comparisons with World War 2. Obviously, W the candidate was somewhat informed at the time regarding the unpopularity of previous nation-building quagmires, and he and his handlers saw that the point resonated when Bush the candidate foreswore nation-building. Then they chose to forget. But Americans still remain uninspired about sending our troops out into the world to topple and erect foreign goverments, and that resolve is strengthening, because we have in fact learned from our own history, and that of empires past. A more honest slogan describing present policy in historical context would be "We Don't Know What the Fuck To Do Now". That's why the American public never signed on to nation-building in Iraq, after the official scare-tactics about Iraq fell flat. Which is why the Congress never signed on to nation-building in Iraq. Unfounded as it was, "Saddam is Gonna Gitcha" had a lot more traction. The nation-building slogan projects the cart so many miles before the horse that there's no hope of hitching them up for an effective campaign. The nation-building slogan is only a withered fig-leaf. The United States cannot ever broker a stable, functioning democracy in Iraq. A civil war is underway, in which the USA utterly lacks reliable allies among any of the factions. The Shi'a, wielding the most power of any faction in Baghdad, are aligned with Iran in ways that the USA can never compete with, and certainly not by antagonizing Iran. The United States cannot ever broker a stable, functioning democracy in Iraq, because the ethnic cleansing that has occured under American auspices has not contributed to the reconciliation or reconstruction of a multi-ethnic Iraq; the opposite has been occuring. While ethnic segregation and tensions intensify, democracy is an entirely moot point. Stability and democracy are not feasible under American auspices, because American auspices have been the kiss of death to Iraq- first for the nation as a whole, and then for any factions, and for individuals perceived to be American stooges. The United States cannot broker a stable, functioning democracy in Iraq because we will long be remembered as Iraq's tormenter and bane. Criminally irresponsible intervention did not only destroy Iraqi national cohesion. Deep resentments resulting from the predictable but mismanaged collapse obviated any American-sponsored solution. To expect a reversal of this situation is to expect an unprecedented change in human nature in a departure from common sense, and the preponderance of all political and behavioral sciences. People don't invite the bull to fix a trashed china-shop. Long before the place gets fixed up again, the bull must go out the door, either on its feet or not. Inventing and parrotting further slogans in an attempt to disguise the catastrophe can never mask the persistent reality that American legitimacy in overseeing Iraq is over. So is the legitimacy of any political structure propped up by an American-branded occupation, cursed from the outset. Highlighting potemkin villages, and announcing idealistic visions will not conceal this harsh reality. To support the prolonging of American occupation is to participate in a criminal and murderous negligence that mocks the ideals of humanitarianism and democracy, only to conceal dysfunctional and deadly pride, arrogance, and dishonesty. The USA is not building democracy in Iraq. We're only building up hatreds, in order to avoid facing for a little while longer the growing horrors that our hubris has precipitated, and can never repair.
