Who still has confidence in Bush's war stratergy?

[Nan]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-r...360.html?page=2

This is a link to an article published today in the Sydney Morning Herald, written by Douglas Wood. Mr Wood was working in Iraq, was taken hostage and released after some weeks.

While not directly addressing the US-Iraq issues, it is one view of the current political situation there.

[Nan]

That link is to page two of the article,this is to page one

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-rot-starts-at-the-top-in-iraq/2007/01/03/1167777152360.html

[Jeannieb43]

Nan, that's a very interesting article.

And I also enjoy the conversation among all the others on this topic.

But may I at least harken back to my question on Page 1 of this thread: What did Gerald Ford do to end the war in VietNam?

Now I realize several here have said Ford wasn't responsible for ending the war in VietNam. But, here are two dates of which I'm positive:

August 1974 - Nixon resigns; Ford becomes President

30 April 1975 - Saigon falls; many Vietnamese are liberated by the Americans (including several Adventist missionaries who helped organize the liberation).

So. It appears to me that the fall of Saigon occurred on Ford's watch. And shortly thereafter the US got out of the war. Maybe it was only because Congress cut off funding. But at least Ford was in charge at the time we left off fighting in VietNam. Since many have eulogized his leadership at that time, I was wondering what specifically he had done.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

It appears to me that the fall of Saigon occurred on Ford's watch. And shortly thereafter the US got out of the war.

I thought I covered this already. The US troops were pulled out in 1973 after a peace treaty made in Paris that won Henry Kissinger the Nobel Peace Prize. Saigon fell in 1975 after the Democrat-controlled Congress cut off funding to their government, which made the enforcement of the peace treaty impossible. So basically the work that Henry Kissinger did that won him the Peace Prize was undone by the Democrat-controlled Congress. Ford was President but it was the Democrats in Congress that took control of the situation by cutting off the funding.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Now that we are there, we have to stick it out and win it. The consequences of not winning it are unacceptable. If we leave too soon--before Iraq is able to stand on its own and defend itself against the Muslim extremists, against Syria and Iran-- that whole area will be like one huge powder keg, and no one will trust the United States again. That is exactly what the far left wants. They want to see the US lose and in a big way.

My question is really about stratergy. What is the best way to win? I'm not sure if there is going to be a winner in the ordinary sense of the term. There was no winner in the reshaping of the Balkan region. There was a return to stability. America cannot win but I think there can be a return to stability but the question is how?

Will a surge of 30,000 troops do it?

I'm sure you're right that there won't be a winner in the ordinary sense.

I really doubt that a surge of 30,000 troops will accomplish much. It's going to take a lot more than this.

My opinion is that in order to do the job correctly, we would need (1) between 60,000 to 100,000 more troops in the Baghdad area alone, and they would need to stay for several years; (2) to assist the Iraqis in building up the superstructure, such as water, electricity, etc.; (3) to continue to train tens of thousands more military and police; (4) to work with Iraq's neighbors to either somehow gain their support for the Iraqi government or else take military action to stop their support of the insurgency; and (5) to build up the educational system.

All of this of course would require lots of patience and money. However, I doubt the United States has the patience and I don't think it's willing to spend the amount of money that would be required. So while I think it will be the wrong thing to do, I'm afraid eventually the US will simply withdraw. As a country, we have apparently decided the sacrifice is simply not worth it.

[John317]

Nan, that's a very interesting article.

And I also enjoy the conversation among all the others on this topic.

But may I at least harken back to my question on Page 1 of this thread: What did Gerald Ford do to end the war in VietNam?

Now I realize several here have said Ford wasn't responsible for ending the war in VietNam. But, here are two dates of which I'm positive:

August 1974 - Nixon resigns; Ford becomes President

30 April 1975 - Saigon falls; many Vietnamese are liberated by the Americans (including several Adventist missionaries who helped organize the liberation).

So. It appears to me that the fall of Saigon occurred on Ford's watch. And shortly thereafter the US got out of the war. Maybe it was only because Congress cut off funding. But at least Ford was in charge at the time we left off fighting in VietNam. Since many have eulogized his leadership at that time, I was wondering what specifically he had done.

Ford really didn't do anything in regards to Vietnam except allow the decisions made during Nixon's presidency to go into effect. It was a fiasco the way the US finally got out at the very end. It was an embarrassment to the Ford administration, but of course those things were not mentioned at Ford's funeral.

Thousands of Vietnamese refugees were flown directly to Norton Air Force Base near Loma Linda, CA, and they found temporary places to stay there. My parents accepted some of them into our home at that time.

[Bravus]

Someone elsewhere was pointing out that Iran is Shia and Saudi Arabia is Sunni. If the US pulls out now Iraq is more likely to become a Shiite-dominated state, which would lead to oppression and possible genocide of the Sunni (and Kurdish?) minorities. That in turn would make the Saudis very angry, and they'd be likely to retaliate by using their power with OPEC to raise oil prices dramatically. It would also strengthen Iran's hand in the region.

[Ceth]

Maybe I'm over-simplifying here, but there is a whole country of people over there who were born, raised, and who lived their lives up to this point with certain frames of reference, ideals, and assumptions. Many of them, maybe even the majority of them, will die with most of those intact. Regardless of whether or not we believe the war is justified, regardless of whether or not we feel the approach was justified, it is not reasonable to expect an entire country to throw away their identity, their deep-rooted beliefs and ideals, on a moment's notice simply because someone with more firepower showed up in town and replaced the sheriff.

Although we can replace the form of government and get some people who think they really believe in the new way of doing things to help run the show... the country itself, meaning the people and their minds, will quite likely not be fully or even mostly won over until the next generation grows up, not having known the reign of Saddam or those previous to him.

So expecting a quick in-and-out fix and everything is all better is not reasonable. The best we can do is ensure the form of the new government becomes stable, and provide for the influx of new ideas and ways of doing things (i.e. democracy, capitalism, and eventually freedom of thought and religion).

Now when you look at that... Since we effected the change of the form of government, we have a responsibility to assist in preserving it until it has a chance to gain popular support not only in momentary thought, but in the people's deep rooted assumptions and understanding about how their country and their world work. Again, quite likely this will take at least one full generation to take effect.

So how do we preserve stability? Regardless of whether we agree with what happened, or how, as members of the country that did the deed, we should be willing to assume some level of responsibility for the actions already taken. Those actions cannot be taken back, and simply walking away at this point would likely result in the eventual breakdown of everything we worked hard to achieve. Certainly it is not in the best interests of those we are over there to help for us to leave the future ownership of the government up to a multi-party civil war.

I don't have all the answers, but I believe we should think twice before we say "withdraw them all, enough is enough, we're done".

Now, going forward, certainly there is room for discussion on how this is to be achieved, and like I said, I don't have those answers for what exactly those methods might be. I do think we have a responsibility to make the attempt to work through the questions and find workable solutions and assist with implementing those solutions.

[John317]

Ouch...

(a) The consequences of not winning it are unacceptable

( A lot of people do not believe this war is winnable

Conclusion:

The outcome is going to be unacceptable.

Yes, almost certainly the outcome is going to be unaccaptable.

The war is winnable, but it might as well not be because the American people don't think it is, and that's what's most important as far as winning is concerned.

The American Civil War came close to being lost and would have been if Lincoln had lost the 1864 election. It took a Lincoln to win that war but we don't have a Lincoln. Lincoln defied the Supreme Court in order to win the war because he really believed in what he was doing and he knew he was right.

One of our problems is that we're no longer certain we're right. That is also what happened during Vietnam, and therefore, as in that war, we are going to lose in Iraq. We lost our faith in ourselves and lost our focus, and the Islamists knew we would.

[John317]

Someone elsewhere was pointing out that Iran is Shia and Saudi Arabia is Sunni. If the US pulls out now Iraq is more likely to become a Shiite-dominated state, which would lead to oppression and possible genocide of the Sunni (and Kurdish?) minorities. That in turn would make the Saudis very angry, and they'd be likely to retaliate by using their power with OPEC to raise oil prices dramatically. It would also strengthen Iran's hand in the region.

With the Democrats now a majority in both Houses, look for the Left to push for them to do what many believe the Democrats were elected for: to get the US out of Iraq. They will demand that the Democrats cut off Congressional funding, which they will not want to do but will be forced into doing if it is the only way to get us out. The Left wants the US to lose because it sees the US as the greatest threat to everything it supports.

I agree with what you said, especially regarding the probability of genocide once the US leaves Iraq. After that Iran will become the dominant power in the region. I don't want any of that to happen but it's what I believe will occur if the US withdraws from Iraq.

[Jeannieb43]

Ford really didn't do anything in regards to Vietnam except allow the decisions made during Nixon's presidency to go into effect. It was a fiasco the way the US finally got out at the very end.

Thanks, Jim. And also Shane.

In other words, Gerald Ford's greatness consisted in knowing when to let things alone. Not to interfere in a process which was already in place when he came on board.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

Who still has confidence in Bush's war stratergy?

Unless someone here is privy to the confidences of the President, you do not know what his current war strategy is. Yeah, we can talk about what's been done/not done so far, but, really, all we can do is hindsight barking.

imho

[lazarus]

With the Democrats now a majority in both Houses, look for the Left to push for them to do what many believe the Democrats were elected for: to get the US out of Iraq. They will demand that the Democrats cut off Congressional funding, which they will not want to do but will be forced into doing if it is the only way to get us out. The Left wants the US to lose because it sees the US as the greatest threat to everything it supports.

I don't understand the use of this term LEFT. If you mean democrats then like has been said before they are pretty much center as compared to the LEFT in other parts of the world. How can the LEFT see the US as the greatest threat. They are Americans! Unless you are talking about some shadowy group that has infitrated the US. The democrats may be against current US policy but how can they be against the US. This isn't a logical assertion in my view.

If we define wining as the destruction of the Saddam regime then the US has won. If we define winning as the advancement of US interests then at least in the short term the US has lost.

The goal needs to be stability in order to save lives and give the possibilty for freedom to flourish. My guess is that there will be some sort of Shia dictatorship which will be allied with Iran. If this happens of course they will crush the Sunni's.

The only way there can be an American victory is for the US to "re-invade" with another 100,000 and start again. Many sources suggest US army does not have the capacity for that, its stretched too thin.

If Bush annouces a 15,000-20,000 surge we'll know that its all over in Iraq. Bush will just be trying to let the clock run out on his presidency and leave the tough decisions for another President.

I think the point made earlier about the example of the Irish peace process is a good one. I remember the start of that process very clearly. It became a reality only when the UK gov realised that it could not beat the IRA. There had been several huge explosions on the UK mainland and secretly the government took the decision to negotiate. It took two years for them to admit it publically.

I believe the US knows it cannot win. It has already been negotating with insurgents. What remains is the eventual public admission. True to form, Bush does not want to make that admission.

[lazarus]

Unless someone here is privy to the confidences of the President, you do not know what his current war strategy is. Yeah, we can talk about what's been done/not done so far, but, really, all we can do is hindsight barking.

imho

The US president is to be held acountable for all his actions on behalf of the country. If it appears that his statergy is not working he needs to be asked questions. The 300 servicemen/women that have died in the last three months deserve that kind of accountability. If there was security in Iraq Bush would be riding high at 60% in the polls. Things are getting worst and its costing many many lives therefore he must be held to account.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

With the Democrats now a majority in both Houses, look for the Left to push for them to do what many believe the Democrats were elected for: to get the US out of Iraq. They will demand that the Democrats cut off Congressional funding, which they will not want to do but will be forced into doing if it is the only way to get us out. The Left wants the US to lose because it sees the US as the greatest threat to everything it supports.

I don't understand the use of this term LEFT. If you mean democrats then like has been said before they are pretty much center as compared to the LEFT in other parts of the world. How can the LEFT see the US as the greatest threat. They are Americans! Unless you are talking about some shadowy group that has infitrated the US. The democrats may be against current US policy but how can they be against the US. This isn't a logical assertion in my view.

There are many Americans, believe it or not, who hate the United States. They enjoy many things about living here, such as our relatively high standard of living, but they hate the United States government and everything we have stood for historically as a nation. I know this because I was once among them and active politically with them. I used to distribute a Leftist newspaper, The Militant, on the streets of LA and San Diego.

You can see a current article from the Militant below. I will also give you some links that will show you what I am talking about. Basically "the Left" are those who want to see the United States become, to varying degrees, socialistic. There are other things that they share but that is the main thing they all have in common. Nancy Pelosi, the new speaker of the House, holds many views in sympathy with the Left.

(Notice the use of "bourgeois standards" in the newspaper article. They are ridiculing middle class, capitalistic values. They would think nothing of executing their enemies in a worse fashion, but they exploit the moral sensitivities of middle class Americans who believe firmly in justice for all.)

http://www.internationalsocialist.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_(United_States)

http://www.themilitant.com/index.shtml

Vol. 71/No. 2 January 15, 2007

U.S. rulers press brutal Iraq war

(front page)

BY SAM MANUEL

WASHINGTON, January 3—In a rare opinion column published in today’s Wall Street Journal, U.S. president George Bush said, “We now have an opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus to fight and win the war” in Iraq. He made a similar point at a White House press conference the same day, following his first cabinet meeting of the year. Bush said he will present a new plan for the war in Iraq soon, likely before his State of the Union address scheduled for January 23.

According to a Reuters dispatch, Bush “is considering a short-term increase of thousands of U.S. troops to try to bring stability to Baghdad.” The U.S. rulers’ goal with such a “temporary surge” of their forces is to establish a stable capitalist regime they can rely on in a country torn by sectarian fighting among bourgeois forces vying for a bigger share of power. The bloodletting resulted in the deaths of 16,273 Iraqis last year, according to Iraqi government officials.

The state of the Iraqi regime was highlighted by the lynch-mob style execution of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. The leader of Iraq’s Baath party police regime, who was overthrown by the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, had been sentenced to death following a lengthy trial. He was being held in a U.S. military prison. Hussein was hanged December 30 in a way that violated even elementary bourgeois standards of justice.

During the execution, Hussein was taunted by guards and a number of the witnesses present, who shouted “Muqtada!” as he was stood at the scaffold. The chant was referring to Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of a Shiite militia that has carried out indiscriminate murders of Sunnis, including working people, much like pro-Baathist Sunni-led death squads.

Constitutional provisions requiring the three-member presidency council to approve hangings, and a prohibition on carrying out executions on the Muslim holiday of Id al-Adha, were ignored.

At least two Iraqi government officials attending the execution filmed it with cell phone cameras. Those recordings are the likely source of graphic footage now appearing on the internet. As Hussein faces a barrage of derision, including by someone who yells “Go to hell!” the voice of Judge Munir Haddad can be heard saying, in vain, “Please no! The man is about to die.”

Reacting to growing criticism of this degrading mob atmosphere, a U.S. military spokesman claimed U.S. forces had no role in the execution. Gen. William Caldwell said all security matters at the hanging, including searching witnesses for mobile phones, was left to Iraqi authorities, according to Reuters.

Prosecutor Munkith al-Faroon, however, said U.S. soldiers searched those attending the hanging and took mobile phones, including his. The atmosphere was so raucous that al-Faroon threatened to leave, which would have halted the hanging. Iraqi law requires that at least one prosecutor be present during an execution.

This thuggish conduct has sparked outrage among Sunnis and others, and prompted the Iraqi regime to announce the arrest of a guard who filmed the macabre scenes without authorization.

In order to reverse the ongoing instability, Pentagon officials said the White House may send up to 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, reported the December 29 New York Times. Others in the ruling class argue the number falls short of what’s needed.

“Bringing security to Baghdad,” said an opinion column in the December 27 Washington Post, “is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so.” Its authors are Jack Keane, a retired Army general, and Frederick Kagan, of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank. The two wrote an AEI study outlining the same point, which Bush is considering as an option for Iraq.

In a related development, Washington is sending 3,500 troops to Kuwait as an “on-call force” for the U.S. military’s Central Command (CENTCOM), reported the Armed Forces Press Service. The troops will be available for use in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. CENTCOM is responsible for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Ford really didn't do anything in regards to Vietnam except allow the decisions made during Nixon's presidency to go into effect. It was a fiasco the way the US finally got out at the very end.

Thanks, Jim. And also Shane.

In other words, Gerald Ford's greatness consisted in knowing when to let things alone. Not to interfere in a process which was already in place when he came on board.

I am no enemy of Ford. In fact, I wish now I had voted for him rather than for Carter who I think was a terrible president. Except for his slamming the US at every opportunity he gets, Carter has been one of our best former presidents.

In a debate with Carter, Ford said, "Poland is not under the domination of the Soviet Union." He probably lost the election with that ridiculous comment.

One positive thing Ford did was to help set the stage for Reagan's defeat of the USSR in the the late 1980s. If given more time, I think Ford would have been a decent president. As it is, the main thing he will be remembered for is bringing moral integrity back to the White House, at least until Clinton.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

Unless someone here is privy to the confidences of the President, you do not know what his current war strategy is. Yeah, we can talk about what's been done/not done so far, but, really, all we can do is hindsight barking.

imho

The US president is to be held acountable for all his actions on behalf of the country. If it appears that his statergy is not working he needs to be asked questions. The 300 servicemen/women that have died in the last three months deserve that kind of accountability. If there was security in Iraq Bush would be riding high at 60% in the polls. Things are getting worst and its costing many many lives therefore he must be held to account.

I agree with you. The US president is accountable to the people of America. That is, he should answer questions. But the president cannot be held "accountable" to a court of law for things that go wrong, such as a war, unless he has committed a crime. Presidents are held accountable in the sense that the people have the power to vote them out of office. They can also be prosecuted for crimes committed during their terms in office, but only after they leave office. Americans, however, have never particularly wanted to see their presidents in jail or prison. It is bad for the office of the Presidency, which is far more important than any one man. Even Nixon, who did commit a crime, wasn't put in prison, and it was a good thing for America.

If you think Bush has cost a lot of American lives in this war, just compare this war with all the other wars America has been involved in. You'll find this war has cost relatively few American deaths. Most of the deaths have been Iraqi and they have been killed mostly by other Iraqis.

The Sunnis could make peace with the Shiites fairly soon, actually. It just depends on if they think they can't win by blowing people up. If they think it would be to their advantage to make peace with the Iraqi government, then that is what we can expect them to do. If they think Americans are about to leave, though, they might think they have no reason to stop their insurgency. On the other hand, once the Americans leaves, the Sunnis could end up being slaughtered by the majority Shiites which have friends in Iran who would be glad for an opportunity to kill off a lot of Sunnis. Look for a blood-bath in Iraq if America leaves that country too soon. It may make what Saddam did after his attempted assassination look like child's play.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I don't understand the use of this term LEFT.

In Congress the Democrats sit on the left side and the Republicans sit on the right side.

[John317]

Quote:

I don't understand the use of this term LEFT.

In Congress the Democrats sit on the left side and the Republicans sit on the right side.

That's very true, but of course when people talk about "the Left," they are not referring to chairs.

Republicans may be "liberal", but no one ever refers to any Republican as being in the Left. By definition, that would be a contradiction in terms.

See the following for one view of the Left:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

With the Democrats now a majority in both Houses, look for the Left to push for them to do what many believe the Democrats were elected for: to get the US out of Iraq. They will demand that the Democrats cut off Congressional funding, which they will not want to do but will be forced into doing if it is the only way to get us out. The Left wants the US to lose because it sees the US as the greatest threat to everything it supports.

...I believe the US knows it cannot win. It has already been negotating with insurgents. What remains is the eventual public admission. True to form, Bush does not want to make that admission.

Of course the US could win, just like the US could have won in Vietnam, but it is a matter of whether the US really wants to win, and it doesn't now and it didn't then. The cost would be too much in terms of America's resources, both human and monetary. The American Civil War and World War II showed the extent Americans are willing to sacrifice themselves when we believe our very lives and our freedoms are dependent on it. But Americans aren't convinced anything essential to our own personal lives is involved in the war in Iraq. That's the bottom line.

[bevin]

What would a "USA Win" look like?

A democratically elected government? We oppose the democratically elected Hamas!

A dictator/strong-man that supplies us with cheap oil? We deposed Saddam!

An Islamic state? We kicked out the Taliban.

Here is the real problem. We don't even know what it means to win. We are pouring in Billions of dollars a week, and we don't know why.

/Bevin

[Woody]

We support and are glad for the election that Lebonan had. Hamas we do oppose but we support and applaud the process that elected them. That case is a fine example of victory.

[John317]

What would a "USA Win" look like?

A democratically elected government? We oppose the democratically elected Hamas!

A dictator/strong-man that supplies us with cheap oil? We deposed Saddam!

An Islamic state? We kicked out the Taliban.

Here is the real problem. We don't even know what it means to win. We are pouring in Billions of dollars a week, and we don't know why.

/Bevin

Here's what winning would look like:

A win would be to keep Syria and Iran from interfering in Iraqi affairs and to keep Iran from being involved in the killing of American and Iraqi troops and police.

A win would be to see the Iraqi insurgents stop blowing up and killing other Iraqis, and instead work together to make their nation strong and good.

As for democracy and elections:

Hitler was elected. The current leader of Iran, who says that he would like to see Israel wiped off the map, was also elected. The simple fact that someone was elected is not what's important. Democracy can go bad if the electorate are not educated, not wise, or are easily manipulated by evil men. That is why the US has a republican form of government, and is not a pure democracy. Our forefathers-- speaking nationally-- did not trust the masses, and for good reason: they are notoriously fickle. If the electorate are uneducated or illiterate and foolish or corrupt, they cannot expect to get a government that is anything but like themselves. Their distrust of the masses, by the way, is one of the main reasons for the Electoral College.

[Woody]

Thank you John 317. Well said. I agree very much with what you have said.

[John317]

Thank you John 317. Well said. I agree very much with what you have said.

Thank you!

Have a wonderful Sabbath, Redwood. See you back here later tonight.