After Iraq, then what for the "Insurgents"?

[101A]

After they have broken the back of the United State's will in Iraq, what will be the next move for the people who are doing so much to get us out of there (talking about the insurgents there, not the anti-war folks here)?

I'm betting, encouraged by their resounding victory, they pick up there camps and move 'em on over to Afghanistan an kick our asses over there.

We'll be out of Afghanistan before the next president's midterm election, and a radical wing of Islam will be back in control. The terrorists have the formula, and they will use it again. There will be plenty of poeple in this country who will agree that we need to leave, and the media will soon join in that chorus.

Ultimately, I believe that the towers will have fallen, the Pentagon will have been attacked, and the net result will be Shia control in Iraq, and something similar in Afghanistan. Iran will have nukes, and control over both of those, plus Syria and Jordan.

[boutons_]

"will be Shia control in Iraq"

... which 100% the fault of, the impeachable crime of, dubya/ head for starting an unnecessary, phony Iraq war. Having Saddam in place now would be vastly superior to the Repug Iraq catastrophe and its consequences.

I agree with all your consequences. An unbroken arc of radical Muslim states from Iraq to Afghanistan, with ends of the arc, Jordan/Lebanon and Pakistan, at risk to go theocratic/radical inevitably. Then Israel goes, if not sooner.

Financed by $8B - $10B /month of oil $$ into Iran/Iraq.

To blame this situation
1) on the anti-Iraq-war crowd or
2) on the press or
3) on ANYBODY

... but dubya and head is total, lying bull .

I'm not worried about Iran nukes. Iran can't deliver them to USA, and they're too indsicriminate when used on someplace like Israel which is full of sacred Muslim sites.

Millions of cheap Kalashnikovs, RPGs, mortars, convential rockets, cell phone bombs paid for by US oil $$$ will suffice to take out Israel, and take down not-yet-radical govts in north Africa: Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco.

So the "solution" for the Repugs is to stay in Iraq, keep losing, keep being irrelevant, keep being unable to control the violence, while losing several 1000 more US military.

If the Shia can manage to cleanse the Sunnis, and the US is still there, the Shia will then turn their full force on the US military.

Iraq is not state, will never be a state friendly to USA, ie, the Repugs simply can't win in Iraq. The same is true of Afghanistan.

The Repugs have strategically ed up so ing catastrophically in Iraq that most people can't even start to imagine the consequences.

You're doing a heckuva job, dubya.

[George Gervin's Afro]

After they have broken the back of the United State's will in Iraq, what will be the next move for the people who are doing so much to get us out of there (talking about the insurgents there, not the anti-war folks here)?

I'm betting, encouraged by their resounding victory, they pick up there camps and move 'em on over to Afghanistan an kick our asses over there.

We'll be out of Afghanistan before the next president's midterm election, and a radical wing of Islam will be back in control. The terrorists have the formula, and they will use it again. There will be plenty of poeple in this country who will agree that we need to leave, and the media will soon join in that chorus.

Ultimately, I believe that the towers will have fallen, the Pentagon will have been attacked, and the net result will be Shia control in Iraq, and something similar in Afghanistan. Iran will have nukes, and control over both of those, plus Syria and Jordan.

America has proven they will fight when the fight is worth it. Was Vietnam a resounding success? Worth it? The country decided that 58,000 dead was enough and we have reached that point in Iraq. The majority of this country sees the Iraq war as one that did not have to be fought and that wasting anymore lives there proves nothing. No one is complaining about the war in Afghansitan but I see that you need to 'make that up' in order to prove your point. The consistant complaint about Afghanistan is not why went there but why we left with the job unfinished. We took resources from fighting the Taliban to fighting some liberation experiment that did not work. Why do you blame America for the problems brought on to us by Bush?

[xrayzebra]

boutons will be howling like a banshee for some action from our
government to curb the violence and terrorist attacks in our
cities.

You think I'm joking. The terrorist know exactly what people like
boutons and his ilk have done for them and that they have no
backbone. The will attack and attack and we will be fighting on
our soil. Then boutons and his bunch will cry like little babies that no one is protecting them. And will wonder why the terrorist want
to attack us. We are their friends.

[George Gervin's Afro]

boutons will be howling like a banshee for some action from our
government to curb the violence and terrorist attacks in our
cities.

You think I'm joking. The terrorist know exactly what people like
boutons and his ilk have done for them and that they have no
backbone. The will attack and attack and we will be fighting on
our soil. Then boutons and his bunch will cry like little babies that no one is protecting them. And will wonder why the terrorist want
to attack us. We are their friends.

what in the fuk are you talking about ray? Apparently your definition of backbone is "supporting" an unecessary war and ignoring that young lives are being sacrificed for nothing more than saving face. We will fight and sacrifice.. but we won't sacrifice just to fight..

[101A]

America has proven they will fight when the fight is worth it. Was Vietnam a resounding success? Worth it? The country decided that 58,000 dead was enough and we have reached that point in Iraq. The majority of this country sees the Iraq war as one that did not have to be fought and that wasting anymore lives there proves nothing. No one is complaining about the war in Afghansitan but I see that you need to 'make that up' in order to prove your point. The consistant complaint about Afghanistan is not why went there but why we left with the job unfinished. We took resources from fighting the Taliban to fighting some liberation experiment that did not work. Why do you blame America for the problems brought on to us by Bush?

No one is complaining about Afghanistan now, but they will be, I'm betting.

The people who stirred the pot in Iraq are, for the most part, not Iraqis. They will leave when the job is finished, and they WILL go to Afghansitan. They will pick off our soldiers a few at a time, the death toll will rise. At the same time they will begin civilian blood-baths, side against side, until, eventually, America will get tired of it, write it off, and remove our troops. I believe it is inevitable.

We started something in Iraq, and now that it has gone horribly wrong, we don't have the decency to stick it out. If we will leave the Iraqi's high and dry after messing up there country, why wouldn't we do the same for Afghanistan?

Can't you hear the pundits, the anti-war types? I sure can: How about: "We've been in Afghanistan 18 months LONGER than Iraq, and yet the violence is increasing, not decreasing." or how about, "Soon, the Afghanstan war will have been fought for longer than WWI and WWII COMBINED!" and also, conveniently, it probably won't be the Taliban, so we might hear things like, "It was the Talliban that were responsible for 9/11 - and they're gone, why are we STILL fighting this war"?

If you don't think the US can change its mind real quickly, remember that GW won in '04 on very much a "stay the course" platform in Iraq. That was only TWO years ago.

[101A]

what in the fuk are you talking about ray? Apparently your definition of backbone is "supporting" an unecessary war and ignoring that young lives are being sacrificed for nothing more than saving face. We will fight and sacrifice.. but we won't sacrifice just to fight..

We started the 'unnecessary" war. Can't put that genie back in a bottle. Is it right to leave now? Isn't that worse?

[boutons_]

"The people who stirred the pot in Iraq are, for the most part, not Iraqis."

so you believed dubya last week when he lied that al-Quaida was the cause of dubya's Iraq catastrophe?

US military estimates that only 2% or 3% of troublemakers in Iraq are al Quaida or foreign. As native Sunnis and Shia join into the the fray, that %age will probably go down. Even if al Quaida never showed up in Iraq (they weren't there under Saddam, another Repug lie), the Sunni/Shia civil war was very probably inevitable once Saddam/Baathists were removed.

"don't have the decency to stick it out."

It was "indecent" for the Repugs to start the war, where are the Repugs going to find decency now?

"stick it out" == "stay the course" ? yep, very vague, nice policy.

"GW won in '04 on very much a "stay the course" platform in Iraq".

bull . dubya won ONLY because of Rove's tactic of "war president" worked. Just because the war was going on and not yet obviously a total ing disasater, just enough of the US was hoodwinked into not changing horses in war time. Congrats, Rove, dubya re-elected with smallest margin ever for an in bent pres winner. It only cost 3000+ US mlitary lives and a couple $T.

Do you think you have some kind insight that the eventual, sooner or later, outcome in Afghanistan will be different from Iraq's? Like Iraq, but now 5 years later, the "govt" in Afgahnistan is extremely weak, controls not much more than Kabul, democracy is extremely weak, public security is at very best shaky even in Kabul, the ins ututions and infrastructure are extremely weak. All will collapse and revert to the Taliban as soon as the NATO/US leaves. sooner or later. yawn. That has been evident for a couple years.

[George Gervin's Afro]

We started the 'unnecessary" war. Can't put that genie back in a bottle. Is it right to leave now? Isn't that worse?

So there is the question. Do we continue to sacrifice our blood and money in a conflict that cannot be won militarily? When is enough? From what we know now it depends on the Iraqis themselves to see if they want it bad enough. How many dead GIs would it take for you to decide when to get out? Since we know now that AL Qaeda comprises roughly 2% of the insurgency the notion that' we fight them over their so we don't have to fight them here' is not very accurate. the other 98% are still planning to kill us.. and yet we are bogged down in a no win situation.

[101A]

Do you think you have some kind insight that the eventual, sooner or later, outcome in Afghanistan will be different from Iraq's? Like Iraq, but now 5 years later, the "govt" in Afgahnistan is extremely weak, controls not much more than Kabul, democracy is extremely weak, public security is at very best shaky even in Kabul, the ins ututions and infrastructure are extremely weak. All will collapse and revert to the Taliban as soon as the NATO/US leaves. sooner or later. yawn. That has been evident for a couple years.

See, Afro, Boutons just made my point.

[101A]

So there is the question. Do we continue to sacrifice our blood and money in a conflict that cannot be won militarily? When is enough? From what we know now it depends on the Iraqis themselves to see if they want it bad enough. How many dead GIs would it take for you to decide when to get out? Since we know now that AL Qaeda comprises roughly 2% of the insurgency the notion that' we fight them over their so we don't have to fight them here' is not very accurate. the other 98% are still planning to kill us.. and yet we are bogged down in a no win situation.

I don't know how to "win" in Iraq...all I know is we started it, and don't have the stones to finish it. It's what the insurgents have KNOWN all along; that to beat the US, you simply have to turn public opinion against a given endeavor. They have, apparently, won. It is shamefull.

[clambake]

How do you right a wrong that is an impossible situation. With more dead GIs?

[boutons_]

typical good news from Aghanistan:

December 4, 2006

Panel Faults U.S.-Trained Afghan Police

By JAMES GLANZ and DAVID ROHDE

Five years after the fall of the Taliban, a joint report by the Pentagon and the State Department has found that the American-trained police force in Afghanistan is largely incapable of carrying out routine law enforcement work, and that managers of the $1.1 billion training program cannot say how many officers are actually on duty or where thousands of trucks and other equipment issued to police units have gone.

( note: this is not an opinion piece)

In fact, most police units had less than 50 percent of their authorized equipment on hand as of June, says the report, which was issued two weeks ago but is only now circulating among members of relevant Congressional committees.

In its most significant finding, the report said that no effective field training program had been established in Afghanistan, at least in part because of a slow, ineffectual start and understaffing.

Police training experts who have studied or had first-hand experience with the American effort in Afghanistan said they agreed with the report’s findings, and some said they had warned for years that field training was the backbone of a strong program. But they said additional problems needed to be investigated, including the quality of private contractors and the cost and effectiveness of relying on them to train the police officers. In particular, the experts questioned why the report focused on United States government managers and only glancingly analyzed the performance of the principal contractor in Afghanistan, DynCorp International of Virginia.

( hmm, I bet DynCorp is huge Repug campaign contributor )

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/04/wo...gewanted=print

[101A]

"stick it out" == "stay the course" ?

Didn't say "stay the course". I said "don't quit".

Also, it is not a Republican war, it is an American war.

Just the way it is.

[clambake]

It may be an American war, but half of us feel betrayed. How do you win Iraq when you can't even heal at home?

[101A]

How do you right a wrong that is an impossible situation. With more dead GIs?

First, you start by not calling it "impossible".

Then, you make it clear we're not going to quit, no matter what; no matter how much we lose, no matter how many insurgent there are, no matter how many car bombs, IED's, Suicide bombers, etc...WE"RE NOT LEAVING!

Then, what, exactly, can the insurgents do? Can they beat us militarily? Can they capture and hold ground? Can they drive us out? Can they kill more of us than we kill of them?

No, no, no AND NO.

What would be the point of a continued insurgency, if the goal of that insurgency is to get us to leave?

Eventually THEY would be the ones admitting it was an impossible task.

Unfortunately they KNOW that our policies are fickle, and they KNOW how to manipulate those. Haven't y'all seen the captured do ents that say as much? This war is going as per a plan; their plan.

[101A]

It may be an American war, but half of us feel betrayed. How do you win Iraq when you can't even heal at home?

We all feel betrayed by all kinds of things the government does!

But WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT!!!

We elect the people who make the decisions that set the course for the country, domestically and abroad. When we change our collective minds, we elect different people, which changes the direction the country is heading in.

The insurgents know this. The Iraqis are learning it, in spades.

[clambake]

It is what it is. How does this benefit Iraqis? Actions on the ground will not change. What we have given them is the constant fear of ending up dead.

[101A]

It is what it is. How does this benefit Iraqis? Actions on the ground will not change. What we have given them is the constant fear of ending up dead.

No, it certainly sucks to be an Iraqi right about now; but at least we are there sticking it out with them. The majority ARE NOT killing each other, and I'm sure want this all calmed down.

Staying or leaving AT THIS MOMENT probably makes little difference to them, but in the near future, when the Shia take over and begin government sponsored retaliation and genocide on the Sunni, it will matter a great deal. After that, depending on how "radical" the new government is, public stonings, ala Iran and Afghanistan, may, or may not, be the rule of the day (at least Saddam didn't have a particulary religious bent to his craziness).

Any of that we can prevent, I believe, would be a good thing - SINCE WE STARTED IT!!!

[boutons_]

"WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT!!!"

The Iraq war was Repug/neo-con pet project, prior to 2000.

How many people were involved in cooking up the Repug/neo-con war?
a couple 100 max? vs 300M Americans.

600K MORE Americans voted against dubya than for him. How is dubya's radical programs and Iraq war "American".

Iraq was NOT, and is not, an American project.

Starting Iraq war, and losing Iraq, is EXCLUSIVELY a Repug responsibility.

Smearing Repug on America won't stick.

The Repugs, alone, have disgraced America.

Niceties like "stick it out" or "decency" have long ago been overwhelmed by how to minimize the immeidate damage to US military and the Iraqis.

The long-term damage, well, it's humongously worse, even unimaginable.

[clambake]

If we were really sticking it out, there wouldn't be another 100 dead Iraqis laying on the sidewalk this morning in Bahgdad. 95% of our patrols consist of getting from one point to another as quickly as possible. We're not holding anything but the green zone, which is primarily for our own protection. How does this benefit Iraq?

[101A]

"WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT!!!"

The Iraq war was Repug/neo-con pet project, prior to 2000.

How many people were involved in cooking up the Repug/neo-con war?
a couple 100 max? vs 300M Americans.

600K MORE Americans voted against dubya than for him. How is dubya radical program and Iraq war "American".

Iraq was NOT, and is not, an American project.

Starting Iraq war, and losing Iraq, is EXCLUSIVELY a Repug responsibility.

Smearing Repug on America won't stick.

The Repugs, alone, have disgraced America.

Niceties like "stick it out" or "decency" have long ago been overwhelmed by how to minimize the immeidate damage to US military and the Iraqis.

The long-term damage, well, it's humongously worse, even unimaginable.

Go walk the streets of Sadr city with that message, B. See if it keeps your head attached to your shoulders.

Also, how does leaving lessen the immediate damage to the Iraqis? I'm sure their deaths won't be on our evening news anymore; I mean, what's the point - mission accomplished? But they will still die, probably in even greater numbers.

[101A]

If we were really sticking it out, there wouldn't be another 100 dead Iraqis laying on the sidewalk this morning in Bahgdad. 95% of our patrols consist of getting from one point to another as quickly as possible. We're not holding anything but the green zone, which is primarily for our own protection. How does this benefit Iraq?

Did I ever say I was proud of the job we're doing now?

Obviously, the decision has been made that Iraqi lives are MUCH less valuable than GI lives.

Again, shameful, if that is what's happening.

However, I don't fully believe you characterization of what's going on. Xray posted a letter from a soldier in Iraq last week that is very much at odds with what you have written regarding what our troops are doing in Iraq right now.

[clambake]

I don't doubt that soldiers believe in their cause. I wouldn't try to contradict that. I would hate to be "just spinning my wheels". Most Iraqis are having their mind made up for them.

[boutons_]

"how does leaving lessen the immediate damage to the Iraqis?"

Sooner or later, the Iraqis will complete their civil war, with whatever Iraqi deaths that causes, and Iraq will be stabilized again, but much more powerful and dangerous to USA/world than the Iraq of Saddam since 1991.

The US military, and the still-born, compromised Iraqi govt and its military/police forces, are now powerless to stop it, to which the daily carnage testifies.

I blame the US troops for nothing. They are just employees, pawns, doing their impossible jobs, It's their cynical, evil -in-chief who is fully, exclusively blameful.

I read where the work of US withdrawal would take at least a year.

btw, the Repug political mucky-mucks figure they will have no chance of winning in 2008 with the US still in Iraq. ie, they will push for withdrawal, not because it's the right thing to do for the US or for the Iraqis, but only because they want more of chance of making domestic partisan gains or winning in 2008.