Bush Vetos Troop Withdrawl Bill

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Sadly, I think this is actually incorrect. I think that the idea of launching a humanitiarian war in the middle of this powderkeg of a region was bound to wind up this way. No matter what we did, eventually, there were going to be people out of work and unhappy about it who decided to turn to violence, and eventually it was going to get out of control no matter what happened, IMO. You just can not expect the United States Army to be greeted as liberators and worshipped as freedom-givers in the middle east these days, and that is one of the key flaws.

 

Of course, I can't prove that, and neither can anyone else, because we only have the scenario which actually played out. But I can add that no matter what, it could have and probably should have been pretty obvious that even if this war was a great idea on paper, the people who would be running it were not at all the sort of people who should be trusted with something of this magnitude.

 

You're forgetting something. We WERE treated as liberators in the 1st days after we toppled Saddam. I should know because I saw it 1st hand.

[Balta1701]

You're forgetting something. We WERE treated as liberators in the 1st days after we toppled Saddam. I should know because I saw it 1st hand.

And IMO, there was absolutely no way it was going to last when the people got down to the business of trying to build a country. The flaws were simply too deep to overcome. The Sunnis were never going to accept being a minority, the Shia were never going to accept the Sunnis as an equal partner, and no one was going to let the Kurds secede from the country with all of the oil in the north. The whole country was set up to fall apart, and the only thing holding it together was the strongman. The people might have celebrated that day, but the real issues began when the celebration ended, and there is simply no military way to prevent that.

[NorthSideSox72]

And IMO, there was absolutely no way it was going to last when the people got down to the business of trying to build a country. The flaws were simply too deep to overcome. The Sunnis were never going to accept being a minority, the Shia were never going to accept the Sunnis as an equal partner, and no one was going to let the Kurds secede from the country with all of the oil in the north. The whole country was set up to fall apart, and the only thing holding it together was the strongman. The people might have celebrated that day, but the real issues began when the celebration ended, and there is simply no military way to prevent that.

But we might have had a better shot at it, had they listened to the people who said that 500k troops were needed, not 150k (those people who KNEW about Iraq from experience in 1991). Or, if this administration had actually thought through the nation-building part AT ALL, instead of focusing solely on the military aspects. That last part is what really amazes me - its like one company taking over another with no idea of what they want to then do with it. If a CEO did that, they'd be out of a job.

[Jenksismyhero]

But we might have had a better shot at it, had they listened to the people who said that 500k troops were needed, not 150k (those people who KNEW about Iraq from experience in 1991). Or, if this administration had actually thought through the nation-building part AT ALL, instead of focusing solely on the military aspects. That last part is what really amazes me - its like one company taking over another with no idea of what they want to then do with it. If a CEO did that, they'd be out of a job.

 

I don't agree with this.

 

(a) How would more troops help? Pointing a gun at someone screaming "Hey, you better like that guy over there or else!" doesn't work with one troop, let alone 500k of them. The problem is that we aren't utilizing the forces that we have there. We're trying to make an impact while staying out of the way. We're walking the fine line of trying to make a strong presence while also building up the Iraqi army and police force and their presence. I think the number of troops was more than adequate for what was needed.

 

(B) They didn't focus entirely on military aspects. The entire first two to three years were filled with public works projects, upgrading water, sewage and power systems, building hospitals and schools, fixing roads and bridges, etc. And those works are in use today. The military did it's military thing by trying to weed out the remaining Saddam loyalists, and the government contractors, with support from the military, went to work rebuilding the country.

 

And really that's not fair to say because there has been a ton of political work done over the last few years as well. You don't see it because the headlines don't scream "Success! Iraq's government strong, stable and willing to take over," but that doesn't mean there hasn't been an emphasis on it or that no work is being done.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't agree with this.

 

(a) How would more troops help? Pointing a gun at someone screaming "Hey, you better like that guy over there or else!" doesn't work with one troop, let alone 500k of them. The problem is that we aren't utilizing the forces that we have there. We're trying to make an impact while staying out of the way. We're walking the fine line of trying to make a strong presence while also building up the Iraqi army and police force and their presence. I think the number of troops was more than adequate for what was needed.

 

(B) They didn't focus entirely on military aspects. The entire first two to three years were filled with public works projects, upgrading water, sewage and power systems, building hospitals and schools, fixing roads and bridges, etc. And those works are in use today. The military did it's military thing by trying to weed out the remaining Saddam loyalists, and the government contractors, with support from the military, went to work rebuilding the country.

 

And really that's not fair to say because there has been a ton of political work done over the last few years as well. You don't see it because the headlines don't scream "Success! Iraq's government strong, stable and willing to take over," but that doesn't mean there hasn't been an emphasis on it or that no work is being done.

I think you are misinformed. There are huge swaths of the country we have no presense in and there is all kinds of violence - we have no real control there. And as for non-military aspects, everything I have read indicates that State Dept, and all aspects of nation building were seen as small afterthoughts in the planning of things. It just wasn't cared about. Yes, there were some works projects, though not nearly enough and now they have stagnated.

 

If you really want to see how the war was planned and executed politically and militarily, you should really read the last Woodward book. If you want to see the military internals, read Fiasco or Cobra 22 (I may have the # wrong).

[Balta1701]

(a) How would more troops help? Pointing a gun at someone screaming "Hey, you better like that guy over there or else!" doesn't work with one troop, let alone 500k of them. The problem is that we aren't utilizing the forces that we have there. We're trying to make an impact while staying out of the way. We're walking the fine line of trying to make a strong presence while also building up the Iraqi army and police force and their presence. I think the number of troops was more than adequate for what was needed.

When we went in, we clearly did not have enough strength to deal with the country from the second its administrative abilities collapsed. The ideal example of this is the giant looting spree, which we still never recovered from. We did not have the ability to impose martial law from the second we went in, keep the people calm, and hold together the facilities that were already there. Everything, from vital equipment to munitions was out in the open for those first months, and much of it just vanished. That is one key area where 500k troops could have made a difference. (Although, as I just pointed out, even then, I think the breakup of the country was inevitable, it would have just taken longer).

[Jenksismyhero]

I guess I'm looking at it from a different perspective. In terms of the larger picture of liberating them and instituting a democracy, there were plenty of men and women to do the job. The violence that occurs there on a daily basis isn't stopping the bigger goal of creating a new, successful country. It sure isn't helping, obviously, but it's not stopping it.

[Balta1701]

I guess I'm looking at it from a different perspective. In terms of the larger picture of liberating them and instituting a democracy, there were plenty of men and women to do the job. The violence that occurs there on a daily basis isn't stopping the bigger goal of creating a new, successful country. It sure isn't helping, obviously, but it's not stopping it.

Yes, actually it is. The violence is preventing virtually every bit of reconstruction from happening and has been doing so for at least 3 years now since the explosions in early 04. The stuff we started to renovate has basically fallen apart of since been blown up, if a decent job was even done in the first place (which often was not the case). People who would have taken jobs rebuilding no longer will because they'll get killed. We can't ship spare parts and supplies into the country without heavy escorts. Oil supplies flowing out, which should generate revenue for rebuilding, are virtually strangled because of the bombings.

 

Up and down the list, the things that would need to happen for that country to actually rebuild and grow into a functionning nation are totally strangled by the facts that our rebuilding efforts to start off were shoddy, poorly organized, and hampered by greed, slowed at the start by the looting, and then totally shut down by the rampant violence.

 

And then to top that whole list off...thus far, roughly 500k or so Iraqis are dead, give or take a few hundred thousand either way, another 2 million are displaced within Iraq as refugees no longer in their homes, and another 2 million, including much of the professional, educated classes, have fled the country completely to escape the violence. Imagine 95% of the educated professionals, engineers, scientists, educators, managers fleeing the U.S within a few years - how much would that strangle everything else?

Edited May 30, 2007 by Balta1701

[StrangeSox]

Balta,

 

Where does that 500k dead Iraqis figure come from? That would be almost 350 Iraqis per DAY. That seems way, way too high.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Balta,

 

Where does that 500k dead Iraqis figure come from? That would be almost 350 Iraqis per DAY. That seems way, way too high.

 

Of course it's way, way too high. But that doesn't mean it's not the truth.

 

And in fact, the 'give or take a couple hundred K' is on the money, and the true death toll may be quite a bit more.

 

And even that estimate was back from October.

Edited May 30, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[sox4lifeinPA]

If he vetoed troop withdrawls...can't there still be troop withdraws? or even troop withdrawals? there's a big difference in my mind.

[mr_genius]

Of course it's way, way too high. But that doesn't mean it's not the truth.

 

And in fact, the 'give or take a couple hundred K' is on the money, and the true death toll may be quite a bit more.

 

And even that estimate was back from October.

 

actually, that study is just propaganda from the bush regime. the iraqi civil death toll is closer to about 45,000,000.

[FlaSoxxJim]

actually, that study is just propaganda from the bush regime. the iraqi civil death toll is closer to about 45,000,000.

 

 

cluster sampling is a valid methodology - the kind of thing they did after the Christmas Tsunami to estimate mortality. This isn't foolproof, but it is scientific methodology.

[mr_genius]

 

cluster sampling is a valid methodology - the kind of thing they did after the Christmas Tsunami to estimate mortality. This isn't foolproof, but it is scientific methodology.

 

flasoxx, my survey of 45,000,000 was also done with cluster sampling. don't believe everything the corporate, fascist media tells you.

[Balta1701]

You know, this reminds me so much of that episode of the Simpsons where Maggie is born. And Mr. Burns decides to give Homer the Plague, I mean the Plaque...which reads...Don't forget, you're here forever.

President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.

 

The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years.

 

Democrats in control of the U.S. Congress have been pressing Bush to agree to a timetable for pulling troops from Iraq, an idea firmly opposed by the president.

 

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea.

 

"The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability," Snow told reporters.

 

He said U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and "the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation."

[Jenksismyhero]

You know, this reminds me so much of that episode of the Simpsons where Maggie is born. And Mr. Burns decides to give Homer the Plague, I mean the Plaque...which reads...Don't forget, you're here forever.

 

 

Would people have an issue with this (permanent base there)? My dad seems to think that was the point of this entire war. The Bush people thought the best and easiest target was Iraq, which wouldn't take long to overhaul, and then we could move onto the bigger evil-doers in Iran. But along the way we found out that taking over a country and implementing a new government is hard work and takes a little longer than expected.

 

At least it would give us the ability to protect the oil fields...

[Texsox]

Would people have an issue with this (permanent base there)? My dad seems to think that was the point of this entire war. The Bush people thought the best and easiest target was Iraq, which wouldn't take long to overhaul, and then we could move onto the bigger evil-doers in Iran. But along the way we found out that taking over a country and implementing a new government is hard work and takes a little longer than expected.

 

At least it would give us the ability to protect the oil fields...

 

And taking over a country by violence is exactly why some countries distrust us. Statehood for Iraq!

[Mplssoxfan]

He said U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and "the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation."

 

We were invited?

[Rex Kickass]

If he vetoed troop withdrawls...can't there still be troop withdraws? or even troop withdrawals? there's a big difference in my mind.

 

Why would he veto troops with drawls? We need all the help we can get!

[Balta1701]

Why would he veto troops with drawls? We need all the help we can get!

No we don't. We don't need help. Things are fine. Look, Lindsay Lohan's in Rehab and some guy with TB did something!

Edited June 2, 2007 by Balta1701

[Rex Kickass]

YOU LEAVE LINDSAY A-LOHAN-E!