Comments on: Interseting Way To Look At the War In Iraq http://enableate.com/steve/2008/1129 make it happen Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:15:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Jamie http://enableate.com/steve/2008/1129#comment-13857 Jamie Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:36:00 +0000 http://enableate.com/steve/2008/1129#comment-13857 "In this capacity the strategy was unequivocal success particularly when you consider how soundly we routed Al Qaeda in Iraq." I guess the Military personell disagrees with your position. "Make no mistake, Al Qaeda in Iraq is still present," said Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, commanding general of Multi-National Division-Baghdad. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/18/iraq.attacks/index.html “In this capacity the strategy was unequivocal success particularly when you consider how soundly we routed Al Qaeda in Iraq.”

I guess the Military personell disagrees with your position.

“Make no mistake, Al Qaeda in Iraq is still present,” said Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, commanding general of Multi-National Division-Baghdad.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/18/iraq.attacks/index.html

]]> By: Michael http://enableate.com/steve/2008/1129#comment-13856 Michael Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:24:06 +0000 http://enableate.com/steve/2008/1129#comment-13856 Routing Al Qaeda was commendable, but that's the easy part. The hard part is making these people form a workable, peaceful state. This is made very difficult by the fact that there are groups within Iraq actively fighting against the government. FTA: "In both countries [Iraq and Afghanistan] the removal of U.S., Coalition, and NATO forces would almost certainly lead to a failed state and return to anarchy." If we can agree this is true, and I think we can considering how anti-pulling out you are, then we are inherently saying that these people do not really want a unified government. If they did, they would try to form one whether we were there or not. So what is the plan then? I assume it is to somehow to set up a government that is democratically elected, is competent, and is accepted by the people (enough that they will submit to its authority). This government must provide legislation, infrastructure, and security to create a unified nation-state. I would like to think that when the Iraqi government can guarantee a decent level of security, that people will begin to trust and respect the state. But how long will that take? And how much should America continue to help? Our federal government has us drowning in debt to the Chinese, and our military is stretched. We cannot continue this indefinitely, nor should we. You yourself have told me on several occaisions that the best way to ruin someone is to help them. We are ruining the Iraqi government and security forces by always being there to back them up when they falter. How are they supposed to create a full, working state without the full responsibilities of a state? "We will stand down when the Iraqis stand up." I say, we should stand down so the Iraqis have no choice but to stand up. A gradual reduction in American forces in Iraq will force their government to take up the slack. And if they do not, or will not, then there is nothing we can do. If they won't fight for their country, why should we? We cannot make them want something they do not want. Routing Al Qaeda was commendable, but that’s the easy part. The hard part is making these people form a workable, peaceful state. This is made very difficult by the fact that there are groups within Iraq actively fighting against the government.

FTA: “In both countries [Iraq and Afghanistan] the removal of U.S., Coalition, and NATO forces would almost certainly lead to a failed state and return to anarchy.”

If we can agree this is true, and I think we can considering how anti-pulling out you are, then we are inherently saying that these people do not really want a unified government. If they did, they would try to form one whether we were there or not.

So what is the plan then? I assume it is to somehow to set up a government that is democratically elected, is competent, and is accepted by the people (enough that they will submit to its authority). This government must provide legislation, infrastructure, and security to create a unified nation-state.

I would like to think that when the Iraqi government can guarantee a decent level of security, that people will begin to trust and respect the state. But how long will that take? And how much should America continue to help? Our federal government has us drowning in debt to the Chinese, and our military is stretched. We cannot continue this indefinitely, nor should we.

You yourself have told me on several occaisions that the best way to ruin someone is to help them. We are ruining the Iraqi government and security forces by always being there to back them up when they falter. How are they supposed to create a full, working state without the full responsibilities of a state?

“We will stand down when the Iraqis stand up.” I say, we should stand down so the Iraqis have no choice but to stand up. A gradual reduction in American forces in Iraq will force their government to take up the slack. And if they do not, or will not, then there is nothing we can do. If they won’t fight for their country, why should we? We cannot make them want something they do not want.

]]>