The US War - Five Years On

[John R]

P.S. what's the deal w/everybody responding by quoting all these long article, repetitive posts...we all know the topic, stop taking up so much space...

QFT. it happens here all the time. i don't get it.

 

[6thGen]

Some people may have been duped...or may have believed that what has happened in Iraq would not happen...but, thinking, educated, experienced, curious people who see the whole picture predicted exactly what has happened...

What is sad is that the people in positions of leadership (for whatever reason, and it really doesn't matter now) either allowed themselves to be duped or lead us into Iraq for reasons that are beyond comprehension.

Again, sadly, it is our military members and the Iraqi people who are paying the immediate price. It will be though, IMO, a very high price that all Americans will eventually pay, unless someone steps forward and stops this foreign policy blunder, and starts to turn America back to our historical values and standing in the world.

I hope for all our sakes, it is not already too late.

Here is something on correcting the situation.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWE3Mjc0YWRjNzdiOTY3MzZkNWRhYWNiNGZjOGExYzE=

 

[6thGen]

Ok Mango, I wanted to follow up on this point with a little more info....


From WorldPoliticsWatch.com:



?While the United States imports considerable amounts of oil from Western hemisphere suppliers such as Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, the importance of the Middle East to the United States is that the region is host to nearly two-thirds of the world's oil reserves (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait alone have just over half), and that the reliable supply of Persian Gulf petroleum is crucial to the global economy.

This has been the primary strategic interest for the United States in maintaining its dominant security presence in the region, rather than the securing of oil supplies directly to the United States per se. Therefore, reducing the level of U.S. oil imports from the Middle East alone will not necessarily change the geopolitical importance of the Middle East to the United States.

Meanwhile the Middle East is forecast to increase its share of total global output. According to the IEA, about 44 percent of the world's oil produced in 2030 will come from the Middle East and North Africa, up from 35 percent in 2004. As long as the world needs oil, more of it is going to come from the Middle East.?



Th extent of our dependance on Mid-East oil also needs to filtered thru the fact that the Global economy is dependant on that oil and we are a major part of the global economy.


</SPAN></SPAN>

I completely agree.

 

[6thGen]

? Dragging up, half-baked, propagandistic, self-published ?articles? (i.e. what the rest of us would call an Op-ed piece) from Neo-Conservative websites is not proof of anything other than your abundant lack of, or incapacity to perform, critical thinking.

I don't believe you have a clear understanding of the term "neo-conservative", specifically the use of the term "neo".

 

[6thGen]

Interesting article. My hope is that we can find the qualified person that we need and that will actually accept the job! Of course, it will take more than just one person to solve this problem ~ an administration that would listen would be a start.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776.html?hpid=topnews

I'd argue that the creation of the position is a sign that the administration is listening. Krauthammer noted several other signs in the article from NRO I linked.

 

[6thGen]

Here is an overview of US Petroleum Trade from 1973 (oil crisis) to Dec. 2006 from the Persian Gulf and OPEC. It's almost the same amount.

Looks to me that we have ourselves in the same conundrum again, and you can not refute that the 1973 oil crisis had no impact economically on our country.

The state of the economy in the 70s was also affected by tax policy, a shaken faith in the office of the President, and government regulation. The economy does not operate in an oil vacuum.

 

[GoodWitch58]

IMO what the Krauthammer article (and other conservative writers) seem to ignore, is that regardless of a military "victory"....without the diplomacy necessary to win the peace, all is still lost.

Who is working on the Peace? Not the President, not the State Department, remember (those who are old enough) the Peace Talks in Paris during Vietnam...back then at least someone was trying to work out a Peace Plan.

Here, we've had no War Plan other than taking down Saddam which our military did handily, but afterwards what was their mission? What is the Mission now? How does anyone know when we've won...

And, we have no Peace Plan and as far as I can tell, no one in the Administration even thinking about one....The War Czar idea: is a pathetic statement on the leadership of our country. What is the Commander in Chief if not the War Czar...and what about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, why is he not doing war czar duty?

The incompetence of this Administration is alarming. And for those of us who have, or have had, family members in the military it is more than scary. It's bad enough they are in harms way--it's worse to know they are their under the command of an incompetent Administration. I am waiting for everyone in this country to get as outraged as many of us mothers and fathers of the troops are!

 

[Mango]

I completely agree.

Here is something on correcting the situation.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWE3Mjc0YWRjNzdiOTY3MzZkNWRhYWNiNGZjOGExYzE=

The state of the economy in the 70s was also affected by tax policy, a shaken faith in the office of the President, and government regulation. The economy does not operate in an oil vacuum.

UT was just adding more fuel to my point regarding our interests in Israel, and Arab oil relaince, and you state you completely agree that economies are affected globally, but yet you are debating my assertion?
Our economy is not affected by what happens globally???

As far as your article posted, tell me how the US had anything to do with the Sunnis turning against Al Qaeda? this has been going on for a while on it's own. Further, turning up at police stations, how is that going to help anything? Why isn't Maliki using this to his benefit? Our US soldiers basically say the Iraqi police are useless. Further, the communications between the Iraqi army and the Police are next to nil.

Do you really believe the Petraeus plan is going to work? There still are not enough troops to secure Baghdad and the Sunni triangle. We will also be short 1/3 of the troops needed for counterinsurgency.
As it is right now the only way some troops can enter dangerous zones in Baghdad is by foot with a tanker following behind them.
Some of our equipment are in desperate need of work.
Our battle weary soldiers are currently being pushed to their brinks, and have to extend tours.

All the counterinsurgency in the world is not going to bring about a political solution acceptable to the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Here is an editorial that IMO displays a more realistic view of what is actually going on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/o.../Times Topics/People/M/Maliki, Nuri Kamal al-

Petraeus may have written an excellent counterinsurgency doctrine, but even he is unsure that it will work in Iraq with the complex political climate there. IMO, Bush is using him as puppet to keep us there as long as possible.

Do I have answers, no, but resolution may lie more in the hands of the Iraqis than we give them credit for.

 

[6thGen]

UT was just adding more fuel to my point regarding our interests in Israel, and Arab oil relaince, and you state you completely agree that economies are affected globally, but yet you are debating my assertion?
Our economy is not affected by what happens globally???

What assertion? Of course out economy is affected by what happens globally, I never said anything different. I disagree with the assertion that we would be more harmed by a loss of MidEast oil than we would by the continued threat of terrorism.

As far as your article posted, tell me how the US had anything to do with the Sunnis turning against Al Qaeda? this has been going on for a while on it's own. Further, turning up at police stations, how is that going to help anything? Why isn't Maliki using this to his benefit? Our US soldiers basically say the Iraqi police are useless. Further, the communications between the Iraqi army and the Police are next to nil.

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009926

This article has a bit of meat on the subject. The article also addresses the aforementioned Shi'ite Cresent.

Here is an editorial that IMO displays a more realistic view of what is actually going on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/o.../Times Topics/People/M/Maliki, Nuri Kamal al-

Petraeus may have written an excellent counterinsurgency doctrine, but even he is unsure that it will work in Iraq with the complex political climate there. IMO, Bush is using him as puppet to keep us there as long as possible.

Do I have answers, no, but resolution may lie more in the hands of the Iraqis than we give them credit for.

The NYT doesn't really offer much substance, other than a defeatist tone that they've repeated often. That's really no surprise, while they don't do a very good job of backing up their premise, it is an editorial. I do not agree that he Petraeus is a puppet, but I agree with your last sentence.

 

[6thGen]

IMO what the Krauthammer article (and other conservative writers) seem to ignore, is that regardless of a military "victory"....without the diplomacy necessary to win the peace, all is still lost.

Who is working on the Peace? Not the President, not the State Department, remember (those who are old enough) the Peace Talks in Paris during Vietnam...back then at least someone was trying to work out a Peace Plan.

Here, we've had no War Plan other than taking down Saddam which our military did handily, but afterwards what was their mission? What is the Mission now? How does anyone know when we've won...

And, we have no Peace Plan and as far as I can tell, no one in the Administration even thinking about one....The War Czar idea: is a pathetic statement on the leadership of our country. What is the Commander in Chief if not the War Czar...and what about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, why is he not doing war czar duty?

The incompetence of this Administration is alarming. And for those of us who have, or have had, family members in the military it is more than scary. It's bad enough they are in harms way--it's worse to know they are their under the command of an incompetent Administration. I am waiting for everyone in this country to get as outraged as many of us mothers and fathers of the troops are!

Peace is negotiated by the victors. We aren't in a position to do so right now, hence the surge. For the war czar issue, on its face I agree. Too bad members of Congress each see themselves as such. However, I don't know what the position entails, and the article does not detail the responsibilities, so I can't really comment on it yet.