Welcome to POSC240-012!
This is where you will be posting 10 blogs throughout the semester; 4 blogs in September, 3 in October, & 3 in November. Your entries should tackle current events, reactions to lectures and readings, & comments & questions about the class.
Make sure you write substantial and thought-provoking entries & write your full name at the end of each post!
Start blogging!
Nick & Sara
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
The war in Iraq
Don't hesitate to post articles and links that you come across regarding the war in Iraq. Make sure to summarize and discuss the article/link that you find. You should also debate other students' ideas and comments.
62 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Hey everybody, I just read this article about the war and I wanted to give some input about it.
I feel that from the start of this war in Iraq, the motives and intentions of what exactly we went in there for are quite unclear. After 9/11 occured I was an avid believer in the fact that we needed to take action against the terrorist group that attacked us. It seems now, however, that we are fighting a war with no guidance and no real leadership. I am 100% in support of the men and woman who fight over there and dedicate there lives to the cause. In the article, Bush keeps stating that once there is stability brought into the country, we will gradually pull out. I genuinly do not feel that there is still any real plan as to what or when our next course of action will be, and I think as a country, we should not be kept in the dark about this pressing matter that affects so many families across America.
There were six US troops killed and 12 more Iraqi civilians killed in a recent roadside bombing in Habibya and in a suicide car bombing in Northern Iraq. This does not make sense to me because the Iraqi people are hurting more of their own people than they are US troops. The troops and the United States are still trying to figure out exactly what happened and who detonated the bomb and also where they attained the bomb from. They suspect that Iran had supplied the bomb, but Iran of course has denied being a part of this. Hopefully they will find out more about this so that it will not happen again.
I feel that when we went into this war we didnt expect it to be this long, this bad, or cost this much. I think it should of been thought of more deeply before we just went over there, but now that we are going on the fifth year of being there we cannot leave now. I think its crucial that we dont leave now until everything is seen through even though we are losing many lives and it is costing a lot of money to be over there. Take a look at this website to see how much your state alone is spending for our country to be in this war.
Every time I think about the war in Iraq I become sick to my stomach and disgusted. The lies that the current administration are feeding the public are a joke. They are not even good lies. When one lie falls through, another one simple is put in its place. We were first told Iraq had direct links to Al Quida, and this was a sufficient reason to invade a sovereign country. The next lie we were fed was the idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. There is chatter now that the military is gearing up for another strike, this time against the near nuclear armed Iran. The scary part is that in my mind there is a small chance that our president and his administration actually believe their own lies. I cant shake the nagging feeling that beyond all this, there is some sinister force dominating our foreign politics. By this force I am of course refusing to the very powerful business interests that are so entrenched in Washington.
I didn't agree with entering the war on the basis that we entered on. However, I feel that Saddam Hussein needed to be stopped. He was a cruel man, and to let him continue with his acts of cruelty within his country would be wrong.
But I feel that regardless of people's opinions on whether or not we should be in the war, every American should support the war. Without the support of everyone back at home, what are they fighting for? Sure, people support the troops, but it's the support of the CAUSE that is necessary. Regardless of whether or not people like our government and its decisions, it is detrimental to the safety of our troops to criticize it to the extreme level that America has currently taken it to.
If we think about it logically, it is impossible to win a war with a cause that is largely unsupported in the mainstream. A huge part of the reason we lost in Vietnam was a lack of homeland support. If we think about the most successful American wars in history, we are reminded of World War I and World War II. When we think of those two wars, especially, we are met with an image of support from the entire nation. Everyone did their part. The government was fully supported in every choice and decision made. I'm not saying we should have been in Iraq to begin with, but we are. We can't go back and change time. By leaving now, we would leave Iraq in a state of turmoil and subject our own nation to a higher threat from nations who will then think that America has a weak government that goes back on its beliefs. And America is anything but weak.
In response to Jessica Jackman's post, it is perfectly true that Saddam Hussein was a cruel tyrant. There are many such people in the world and many of them are American allies. Should we invade every country that is ruled by a cruel tyrant? The problem with this logic is that you may well end up making the situation worse than it previously was, as is the case in Iraq. Of course, let us not forget that invading a Muslim country will not exactly curb terrorism.
The notion that every American ought to support the war simply to give it meaning is absurd. Why should someone support the war if they feel that it is immoral or harmful to America? The question is whether or not the cause of the war is worth supporting. A second question is whether or not our continued presence in Iraq furthers or hinders that cause. Here is a third question: how precisely is it detrimental to the safety of our troops to criticize our government? What about American soldiers who criticize our government? It seems to me that what is detrimental to the safety of our troops is having them stay in Iraq. It is detrimental to Americans in general to have a situation that fosters anti-Americanism and religious extremism.
You say that "By leaving now, we would leave Iraq in a state of turmoil and subject our own nation to a higher threat from nations who will then think that America has a weak government that goes back on its beliefs. And America is anything but weak."
1. Iraq already is in a state of turmoil. The fact is that nobody knows for certain what exactly will happen if we leave.
2. The war in Iraq has weakened us in at least two ways. First, as I stated above, it fosters religious extremism. Second, our support around the globe has been shot because of this war.
I do not really believe that withdrawing from Iraq could possibly damage our credibility much further. Certainly, countries like Russia and China are interested in challenging our superpower status, but one could make the argument that our occupation in Iraq actually makes it easier for them to do this. It bogs us down, after all.
I believe a war with Saddam Hussein was inevitable. In class we've talked a lot about sovereignty and what it means for a country to be a sovereign state. Saddam Hussein, it seems, was not fortunate enough to understand this concept. He had no problem annexing Kuwait in 1990, and showing no respect to the orders of the United Nations. He had no problem bombing and using chemical weapons against citizens of his own country either. The notion that he was a threat (domestically and globally) is hard to refute. He showed that his was willing to ignore the UN, and more importantly (and more frightening), willing to kill for his deranged ideas.
I am not defending how the war was handled, only that Saddam Hussein was a threat to any country that respects the UN or accepts human rights.
While our administration continues to flounder, both Americans and Iraqis continue to die. In a dilemma with no exit strategy in sight, I can’t help but wonder—what exactly are they dying for? It seems as of right now, all that concerns President Bush are opportunities for photo ops and dishonest claims of success. Having claimed Baghdad to be a "stabilized success" why was it that his only visiting agenda was to pose for photos in an isolated and well-fortified air base in Anbar Province? It is time for the President to set aside pride and personal agendas and send our troops home.
In response to Gabe...the United States directly defied the UN and thus the legal sovereignty of Iraq when it invaded the country. According to your explanations as to why Saddam needed to be taken out of power...it seems George Bush would be just as deserving at this point.
We cannot allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking Saddam was taken out of power simply because he was a bad guy. Were that the case, maybe the United States would have taken the intiative and defied the UN in other parts of the world as well, such as Sudan.
We cannot win the war in Iraq, or any war for that matter without fully supporting the effort, not just the troops. If the country does not want to win the war then we will lose. Henry Ford once said, "Whether you think you can, or you think you can't you're right." This country does not fully support the war effort and it has been detrimental to the war. In the beginning before the war started around 70% of the country thought the war was a good idea, but now it is in the 30% range. How can this country foolishly think that now we should not see this war through to the end and leave Iraq a mess when most Americans supported the invasion?
My thoughts, Geoff, are that you are probably right when we are thinking about democracies. However, does public opinion matter for the successful execution of a war in a non-democracy?
To say we as a country must remain in Iraq because we supported it in the beginning is ridiculous.
The fact is we should never have been there in the first place.
The US invasion of Iraq violated both international law and common morality. The moment our premptive invasion of Iraq began we violated the Charter of the United Nations, specifically Article 1, Section 4, which states: ''All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state... ''
But even if we disregard the fact that we trampled on international law, even if certain situations do call for violent exceptions to international agreements...we STILL had no right to invade.
To me it seems our government, by delcaring a very Orwellian "War on Terror", opened up the door after 9/11 to invade any country they felt. All they needed to do was label them as terrorists, or as allies of terrorists.
Did the Bush administration ever link Iraq to the War on Terror? I don't recall personally, but they never bothered to point out how completely different they were.
To me it seems they used the momentum, the fear from 9/11 and terrorism, to fuel the war fires in the country. They abused our rising sense of nationalism and redirected our fury away from actual terrorism, and for some reason towards Iraq. They talked about how Iraq MIGHT have WMDs, how they MIGHT some day get ONE nuclear weapon, they convinced us that this tiny country across the world from us actually posed some significant threat to our safety.
And we fell for it.
Even if Iraq did have these weapons, that does not present a clear and present danger that would justify war. Other nations have such weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons, Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons (and have come close to using them).. And what country has by far the largest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world? And has used them with deadly consequences to countless people: in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Southeast Asia?
No, even if this tiny country in the Middle East had half the weapons we "knew" they did, they posed no real threat to us.
And then theres always the argument that we went in because Saddam was a terrible person...theres no denying Saddam was a tyrant. But not even this fact could justify our entrance into Iraq. After all, we remained silent when Saddam slaughtered the Kurds, when he used chemical and biological weapons against his own people. Hell, afterwards in the 1980's our economic support of the country increased.
Our history in the Middle East is like a big game...a game where we switch sides constantly, lie to our allies and enemies alike, lie to our citizens in order to accomplish things such as securing assets in the area. All one needs to do is look at history, and it becomes obvious we are not in there for any reason our government told us. Look at how willingly our government played games with these people.
If we truly were invading for such noble causes as human rights, then it is likely we would have forces throughout Africa as well where millions have died at the hands of tyrants.
No, to say we should stay simply because we're already there is wrong in my opinion. Staying in Iraq is only further hurting our international image. In fact by staying in Iraq we are essentially playing into Bin Laden's plans. In 2004 he made it quite clear what his intentions were...to bleed out the American economy. To essentially bankrupt America similar to what happened to the Soviet Union over a span of 10 years. These people won't give up, they will not leave, and they cannot be defeated by traditional means. They KNOW how much money this war is costing us, they knew ahead of time the toll it would take. But they knew that we would play into it.
"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations."
Every day we remain in this country we lose money. Every day we remain people die. And essentially regardless of what we do, Al Qaeda wins. If we leave, they make us look weak. If we stay, they will continue to bleed us as a nation. We need to swallow our pride and get out before we devastate the area even more. While we may have removed a tyrant, in the process we opened a door for terrorist groups to come in, removed any stabilization that remained in the country, and caused the deaths of thousands of Iraqi citizens.
Our government made a mistake.
We made a mistake.
Regardless of whether we supported it in the beginning, we need to get out.
Television ads are run encouraging President Bush to "Do something about Darfur." What if today the country unanimously decided to go to Darfur to stop the violence there, but three or four years into the war the situation continued to get worse? Would the country again decide that it had seen enough and that the fight was not worth fighting anymore because of the human life lost and the expense? Would all the soldiers and marines have died in vain because we pulled out before the country could be stabilized? The region would most likely end up worse than when we started. Is this situation any different than our current situation? A country united to go to war, and then a country divided to end the war. If we as a country make that decision, by popular poll, public opinion, or electing officials, then we need to see it through to the end. Regardless if anyone feels as though they have been deceived by the administration regarding WMDs, terrorist links, or genocide.
The insurgency will only be defeated by the local Iraqi people and politicians. The US military gives them the confidence to slowly overcome the insurgents in Iraq. The whole purpose of the troop surge was to increase the security level long enough for this to work. We obviously can't stay forever and that is why the military is working on an exit strategy. General Petraeus has made his report independent of The White House and the Pentagon so that it would be an honest assessment. If he believes that the surge has worked and that he will start bringing troops home as a result, then I must believe him. We are not in Iraq and he is, he should know the situation better than any of us can get from the news. We give up too easily as a result of the negative news that we hear. Go in search of the positive news about Iraq, its out there.
One of the main purposes of the surge was to given the Iraqi government "breathing" room to come to some sort of reconciliation that has not yet happened nor does it appear that it will any time in the near future. In fact instead of working towards real progress they decided to take a month long vacation.
Previous strategies failed and we gave the surge a shot. That has had mixed results at best and yet the Iraqi government is no where closer to any kind of result.
Unfortunately there are no easy solutions in Iraq. If we leave it isn't going to turn out well for anyone. The United States will look weak internationally but we already do because of this mismanaged debacle the Bush administration got us into. I agree with Geoff we cannot stay in Iraq forever. The Iraqi's have had time. It is time for the U.S. to start moving towards pulling our forces out of Iraq with a goal of ending our military committment in Iraq sometime next year.
The reason we need to leave Iraq is NOT because the situation is bleak (at best). The reason we need to leave is because we are not supposed to be there. The reason we need to leave is because, completely despite the troop surge, even this unbiased report says we don't know where we'll stand after the we return to pre-surge levels.
There could be nothing but great news coming from Iraq, and that still wouldn't justify our actions. The fact that people continue to die as a direct result of our invasion, as a direct result of our destabilization of the area just gives us more reason to get out. Even though leaving now goes completely against common morality, what are we going to be able to do to help the Iraqi people? Iraq is a failed state, and remains a failed state despite our years of intervention...in fact, according to the Failed States Index of 2007 Iraq is ranked 2nd worst in the world behind Sudan...all the good news in the world couldn't change that.
We are continuing to make a mess in that entire region, repeating the exact same things over and over since after WWII. We're even paying former Sunni insurgents to fight al Qaeda in Anbar, just fueling the sectarian civil war even more.
We do NOT know for sure whether the troop surge is even the reason for the "decrease" in violence in a select few places in Iraq. Other independent reports contradict the military's recent one (GAO report http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071222t.pdf, NIE report http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM44_070823iraq_nie_-_kj's_-_08-23-07.pdf,Jones report http://media.csis.org/isf.pdf). Some critics suggest the military has such low findings partly because of what they determine to be sectarian violence, as opposed to simple criminal activity (which is not included). http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/09/07/-paul-krugman-time-to-take-a-stand/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwelcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F09%2Fpaul-krugman-time-to-take-stand.html&frame=true).
Many speculate that the reason for drops in violence in these select cities is not because of the surge at all, but rather as a result of successful "ethnic clensing" by Shiite militiamen (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20546328/site/newsweek). Some reports by the AP doubt any drops occured at all (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20440397/).
You can always check websites like http://goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm and read a good story here and there, but people have to be aware of contradicting reports. Just because he is a general, we do NOT have to believe him. If we look 40 years ago at a very similar report on Vietnam, we can see that simply believing these reports based on flashy medals can have bad results.
I'm not saying he is lieing, and I'm not trying to discredit the general. But we cannot make the same mistake and blindly follow people because they are our military, etc. We must take into account what this general has reported, but we must also take into account the contradicting reports done by independent study groups.
This isn't about pride, honor, strength, or even victory any more. I'd like to see us leave iraq as a beautiful, peaceful country. However our intervention has resulted in a religious civil war that we cannot win...even if we disregard the fact we aren't supposed to be here, we have to consider that maybe us staying isn't going to help at all but instead is fueling the insurrgency and bleeding out our resources (not to mention resulting in even more deaths).
We cannot up and leave, but in my opinion we need to have plans drawn up to be gone by next year.
An article from the New York Times titled “Officials Cite Long-Term Need for U.S. in Iraq” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/washington/12policy.html?ex=1347336000&en=ad4071a2b2d45df0&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
The article touches on the controversial issue of the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Bush plans to address the country this Thursday but his overall strategy in Iraq has remained largely unchanged. He is expected to state that no more than a gradual reduction of U.S. troops will occur in the coming months yet plans on leaving about 130,000 American troops in Iraq by next summer. Many of the democratic leaders seem to feel that the president’s approach is “an insult to the intelligence of the American people” Some of the even feel that it sounds “like a 10-year, at least, commitment to an open-ended presence and war”.
The American public will be shocked at the prospect of an undefined, long-term presence in Iraq. Bush will be “hard-pressed” to justify American’s presence in Iraq if there is no political progress in Iraq over the next year. When General Petraeus was asked if this strategy in Iraq is “making America safer” he avoided the question and stated he was doing his best “achieve our objectives in Iraq.” And when asked again he said “Sir, I don’t know, actually.”
Democrats still did not have enough votes to cut off funding for the war or set deadlines for an American withdrawal. Many republicans who were once on Bush’s side no longer believe that he has a workable strategy. Something must change!!!!!
I have scanned over most of the posts in this topic and I am disgusted. Everyone likes to talk about how our "administration is floundering" and that the war "makes them sick". I am not against free speech in a way, shape, or form, but I need to put a word in for the right-wing side of this argument. I am insupport of the descision to go to war and I will always stand behind our current president. Just the blatant disrespect for our current president from the far-left media in this country makes me sick. Free speech is one thing, but slandering the most powerful man in the world, and the protector of our freedom with no viable backing is ridiculous. I have quoted a section of an article that can be found at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10499001/site/newsweek/
"The Jews of Europe are now the Kurds of Iraq, and the Shiites, and the Marsh Arabs. The point of war is not only to defend one's own country from attack but also to free from the jaws of death millions of innocent human beings who lack the military means to secure their own freedom. This may not be a universally supported political or military view of war, but it is a religious view of war, and it is my view of this and other wars. I do not know a single Kurd or a single Marsh Arab or a single Iraqi Shiite, but I do know that they have been slaughtered by the thousands, and because of this war they are now free. The Iraqi killing machine has been destroyed. I also know, and every person of even moderate intelligence also knows, that if our troops withdraw now, before victory has been fully achieved they will be slaughtered again. When I say never again in memory of the Holocaust, I don't mean 'never again Jews,' I mean 'never again anyone.'"
At least this guy knows what he is talking about. This war needed to happen and it needs to be finished.
Again, I feel it necessary to point out that by invading Iraq we have made the situation worse for Iraqis, not better. In the article by Rabbi March Gellman, Gellman states that "The Iraqi killing machine has been destroyed." Yes, and it has been replaced by several more killing machines, not the least of which is Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Gellman seems to be concerned with saving the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny, but he does not seem to consider very much the ramifications of such a policy. There is no guarantee, in the first place, that the government that eventually replaces the Hobbseian state of Iraq will be any better. From the looks of it, it may well be worse. Second, the Iraq War has spawned a whole new generation of people who hate the United States. It has given Al Qaeda a powerful recruiting tool, which endangers everyone in the world. Third, it can potentially destabilize the region and lead to regional conflict. Last, let us not forget that in addition to the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have been butchered and maimed (perhaps it is in the hundreds of thousands), there are millions who are displaced either internally or who have had to flee to other countries. This not only deprives Iraq of many educated people, but it puts strains on neighboring countries such as Syria that receive these immigrants. When the more educated and secular skilled people leave Iraq, religious extremists are left with a more powerful voice in what happens to the nation.
Gellman also makes the usual claim that hawks make, which is that if we leave there will be a humanitarian crisis. Of course, the first point is that there already IS such a crisis. The second is that no one can be certain what will happen if we leave. The third is this may well be a phase that has to be gone through in Iraq, whether we like it or not. It may sound harsh, but it may be that we have to leave and let the Iraqis deal with these problems themselves. Some might argue that it is our duty to stay and use our military to lessen the violence. While I do think we should offer what humanitarian aid we can, the argument can also be made that the only real way to help the Iraqis at this point is to withdraw our military.
Gellman and other hawks would do well to consider the unintended consequences of interfering in the affairs of other nations.
Im just as much of a patriot as the next american, and a good old ass kickin to abolish tyrany where it shouldnt be is always a good cause to fight....but what is the cause now? What cause are we fighting for? And if you can come up with a just cause in your minds....do u think the soldiers in Iraq are proud to fight for that cause? Do you think they will charge to their to take a hill even though they may the last person alive in their unit? No, i highly doubt it. In the grand scheme of things, bush is probaby sipping Hi C with his buddies who came over his house to play on a big world size stratego board. except the moves they make affect real lives. When our troops have been reduced to mere pawns rather than men, brothers, fathers etc as they should be than i can not be patriotical in that cause. Its time to pull out of IRaq. if we dont we will just be there until the next president is elected, or for years and years. Besides it would be nice to have the cost of living cheaper without having to be shorted on things like automotive supplies, or oil, or gas, etc because we are too busy supplying a bullshit war first. its not even war, its just a big nature walk and killing people.
What people like Gellman fail to recognize is the immense instability that has resulted from our invasion. We have ignited not only an insurrgency, but a religious and civil war amongst the Iraqi people. We arm once-militant Sunnis to fight off insurgents and terrorists, but then those Sunnis go and use these weapons against Shiites in their militias. According to the above article, Shiite support from the police and Iraqi army results in the deaths of Sunni people, often with the help of the military and police force trained by us.
If anyone still believes we have some how rescued the Iraqi people, that we spared them from certain death and brought them freedom, take a look here: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
And as for post-troop surge: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/baghdad-surge/
It may not be "genocide", but there are genocides that have killed less.
"In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, 'We need security, not free food.”
I have no problem with fighting for a good cause and i feel that going into Afghanistan to find Bin Laden and take out Al Queada was as good a cause as there is, but i never thought entering Iraq was the right thing to do at the time and i still don't. I thought we should have kept our focus on Afghanistan until we got the job done (which we never did). Now i feel there is nothing good that can come from staying in Iraq or pulling out. I feel that President Bush is staying there to try to make up for the prior wrong doings and mistakes. It's time for him to cut his losses and move on.
The entire conflict with Iraq could be solved very easily if our ally "Turkey" would be more cooperative in the creation of a Kurdish State in Northern Iraq. Turkey has adamantly opposed such a state and has threatened military action if such a state were to be established. A three state solution with Kurdistan in the north and a Sunni and Shia state established elsewhere in Iraq would be in America's best interest. However, this is not a realistic opportunity so other choices need to be considered.
The Bush idea about democracy in a state like Iraq is a dangerous joke that will lead to disaster. Iraq has historically been a buffer state (since 1979) to help stop Iranian aggression, but there is a substantial risk that Iraq's majority Shia population would support Iran's nuclear program. In the worst possible case, we could expect that part of Iraq would be annexed to Iran giving Iran more oil reserves to control. (A similar situation would occur with the creation of a Palestinian state along the West Bank of the Jordan River as the Galilee would soon secede from Israel and join Palestine and other places in Israel would soon follow)
The best and only real solution to the conflict is to put in a new dictator that will provide security for the region and not threaten our allies as well as the moderate Arab states such as Egypt and Jordan. This will allow the United States and the West to continue to get oil and will buy us the necessary time to get a new energy source rendering oil obsolete and the Middle East thus irrelevant. Had the Western states carved up the Ottoman Empire in a more responsible manner rather than in a manner that would cripple the region as much as possible (the creation of Lebanon preventing sea access for Syria as well as the creation of Kuwait to block Iraq's access to the Persian gulf as the two best examples), democracy could potentially work. However, the idea of these three different groups all living together while also providing equal rights for the Christians and the Jews in Iraq is a pipe dream and waste of time and lives for us to pursue.
Last year I was able to attend a seminar at Clayton Hall. Part of the program was members of the Iraq Veterans Against the War speaking to us about their experience. They all expressed how when they were serving, they were completely in the dark as to what the mission was, and why we sent them there, and why they hadn't left yet. A typical day consisted of shooting innocent civilians who they thought were insurgents, or being attacked by someone they thought was just a civilian. The troops' morale is low, and when they come back we are not taking care of them the way we should. Veterans who clearly suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome are being told that they whatever psychological problems they have existed before they served, therefore not allowing them to get the treatment that should be paid for by the government because they cannot afford it. Additionally, this war should not have ever happened the way it has. Originally, when the Constitution was written, the president needed Congress to send troops overseas. However, since the Vietnam era the law has been changed to increase executive power and allow the president to use troops. The creation of the CIA has not only given the president too much power, but allowed the federal government to interfere in other countries affairs and overthrow leaders who we dislike for our own selfish reasons, often replacing them with worse regimes because we do not take local people into consideration. Therefore, Geroge Bush should not have been legally been allowed to send troops to Iraq, and while yes the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, we have created instability in the region and ever since Geroge Bush said "mission accomplished" it seems like nothing has happened. The government should stop lying to its people and soldiers and start to treat them with the respect they deserve. Our Veterans make a sacrifice we will never be able to imagine and we treat them like garbage...that is injustice.
Hmmm, the war in Iraq. I think that when we first decided to invade Iraq, America was behind President Bush 100%. I know I was. Our country was in mourning for those lost during the 9/11 attacks. However, as we got over the initial shock, I think we all wondered why it was, exactly, that we invaded Iraq. The government claimed they had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and that Saddam Hussein was, in fact, linked to alQaeda. So a few years passed and we didn't have an luck finding the WMDs. And we also found out that Saddam had nothing to do with the terrosist attacks. One could conclude that we have waisted billions of dollars and the lives of American soldiers by fighting this pointless war. The sad part is that we are still fighting a war, that, in my opinion, is impossible to win. Our objectives were unclear when entering, therefore, how do we know when we have won/suceeded? The country is already billions of dollars in debt..... not including the Iraq war. I think we should not neccessarily pull our troops out immediately, but, instead, admit our mistake, and gradually pull our troops out of Iraq. When we know for certain, the exact position of Osama bin Laden and his alQaeda members, than i believe we strike with extreme force. But until than, we should preserve the lives of our troops and not put them in danger until absolutely necessary.
I believe that it has always been the intent of neo-conservatives in policy positions to invade Iraq and make and example of it in the interest of greater stability in the middle east. This is reflected from the stockpiles of US military materials that we had over there 4 years before we invaded! There is irony here too, among these so-called neo-conservatives, the vanguard of jingoism--war-mongering, if you will--that none of them ever had any military experience. Their understanding was therefore untested and experimental. If you recall, Bush 1 knew better. Colin Powell knew better, and advised against invading. Both of them had military experience. Bush 2 was a draft-dodger. Cheney was a draft-dodger. So what we have now is a young inexperienced President surrounded by aggressive, ambitious, inexperienced theoriticians pursuading him to declare and wage war, while more experienced, combat-seasoned advisors knew that while--pardon the metaphor--the dog might catch the care, he might not be able to drive it. So, in our case with the war in Iraq, the "dog" (Bush) has spent 4.5 years trying to learn to drive the car. Meanwhile, US and Iraqi people have suffered through his learning process. Not least is Bush's decision to disband the Iraqi army, which turned loose 50,000 armed men into the population, who then became the insurgiants against the US invasion. I believe that because of all this, we have taken just about every wrong turn in this saga that is the war on Iraq. And our ignorance shines brighter than ever. Our desire for war and money has neglected the fact that it takes cultural insight to make a difference. We have been idiots and have offended the Iraqi people every way we've turned.
Here is my commentary on the war: So American opinion, it seems, according to many forms of media, is against the war in Iraq. It is costing billions of dollars, many U.S. military lives, has hurt international relations with our allies, has been mis directed from the start under the Bush administration, and therefore it is easy to see why it is so unpopulair. I believed when the military actions in Iraq began that they had a great cause for such a course of action. Fast forward to now and all has changed in my mind. Yes we were lead to believe we had a great cause to invade Iraq: being a safe haven for alQueda terrorists, WMD's, and a genocidal dictator in Saddam Hussien, we couldn't let this area stay the same. Again, forgeting about all the shortfalls of leadership, the initial lack of armoured vehicles and bodyarmour, the rise in insurgency, the rise in U.S. casualties, and now the rise in troop levels, and focusing back to the current situation at hand: We are still there these years later with no plan to exit in site.
With billions of dollars invested not only in Iraq, but Afgahnistan as well, how can we now just pack up and leave reguardless of how un populiar the war is? What will the cost of leaving so early equal out to? An all out war with a terrorist lead Iraqi government that has united with Syria and Iran? A true training camp for the next generation of suicidal terrorists? Besides having our service men and women home and safe, and the lack of a money pit that is Iraq looming over our heads, what do we gain from leaving immedately? An immediate exit strategey is not the way to go right now, without a dramatic decline in insurgency, or a dramatic growth of native Iraqi government, neither of which are on the horizon. So be prepared to see the U.S. in Iraq past the election of the next president in 2008 because with the amount of money spent and lives lost in Iraq, leaving is going to be a much more complicated decision then entering Iraq ever was.
There are so many aspects of the war in Iraq, and so many different ways to look at it. There is obviously much more at stake than the "freedom" of the Iraq's people and the effort to establish a functional democracy. To be specific, I am talking about money and American business interests in rebuilding Iraq (notabally the huge government contracts that come with it). There is an interesting article on CNN today http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/19/iraq.fateful.day/index.html . It is about private U.S. security forces and their prescence in Iraq, in this case Blackwater Security. There was an incident yesterday that has intensified the debate about private security forces and their patrols in Iraq. Blackwater killed a number of Iraqis who were apparentley doing nothing wrong. Iraq is now asking that private forces like this leave Iraq. One would think that a "Sovereign" nation such as Iraq would have the authority to make a private and foreign firm leave their country. I can't help believe that this will not happen though. The reason being is that companies like Blackwater are in Iraq to protect U.S. businesses and diplomats. And sense we are essentially the law in Iraq we will make the call right?
I have mixed feelings about the War in Iraq. I believe we went into this war under false pretenses. However now that we have taken control of the country it would be detrimental not only to the Iraqi people but to the United States as well. In this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/world/middleeast/19displaced.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/Iraq) posted yesterday the idea of splitting Iraq into three semiautonomous Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish regions seems to be impossible. The patterns suggest that despite the ethnic and sectarian animosity, Iraqis would rather continue to live in mixed communities Even more disconcerting is the fact that the numbers of internally displaced Iraqis has soared since the troop increase began. Many people have already moved once and the statistics are reflecting their second or, in some cases, their third move. Kaitlin Keelan
President Bush acted with the backing of many other nations (a fact many people seem to forget) when the US (not just the president) entered into altercations with Iraq. He acted with the knowledge he had, and whether or not in our 20/20 hindsight it seems to have been the best choice, (though I believe it was necessary) it is a decision that cannot be overturned without serious repercussions. To leave the war in Iraq now, would be to deliberately leave a nation to chaos; how could any that claim to be acting for the good of the people believe that such an action could be beneficial? To leave the country now, would be to seriously undermine what little stability there is left in the Middle East as well as our own standing in the international community. To leave now would be to suggest that the United States does not follow through on its word – I do not believe that that is a door that we want to open. If the United States is shown to have no “backbone” (as such an action of pulling out immediately would suggest), other nations are less likely to take this country seriously in other matters. I think that the power of the United States and its standing in the national community would be greatly harmed by this.
I feel that while the United States had good intentions of helping to establish a democratic Iraqi government, we put ourselves in a position where our troops are essentially stuck there until it happens. I think that the war in Iraq has been fruitless thus far and that we are making little to no progress while taking the lives of our soldiers. Though the US is a superpower and should use this to help countries striving to build a government like ours, I think that some reservation is necessary and that we have been interfering too much in other countries affairs.
I just read a recent article from CNN and it discussed the United Nations boosting its presence in Iraq. The article talks about how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's assures that there's been "substantial improvement" in security and stability in Iraq. Additionally, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, argued that “the increased presence would not only support national reconciliation in Iraq, but also promote diplomatic relations between the country and its neighbors.” I feel that the world nations that comprise the United Nations are working hard for world peace. However, it is at the expense of our troops that we are trying to rebuild Iraq. Our country is spending so much money that I understand it will be a waste if we leave early. However, I do not think our objectives going into this country were clear at all and by staying in Iraq will not make leaving in the future any easier.
I read this article in the summer but I remembered it and thought I would share it with the class. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/opinion/16cordesman.html) At the time, congress was deciding what to do about the $20 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states that the bush administration proposed. The author of the article believes that in order to secure the Middle East, we need to aid Saudi Arabia, who is a very strong ally and powerful country in the area. Moreover, it points out that the United States government tried to force a government on them that did not work. Instead, the Saudis created there own form of government that works for them. Perhaps this can be used as an example for Iraq. Sales to Saudi Arabia will take place with or without the United States. Sales will help the kingdom deal with the Iranian missile threat. Finally, Americans must face the facts that we need to build strong security relations, not all of our allies that are our idea of perfect.
Hey, this article is about Senator Hillary Clinton and how she announced on Sunday that she won't vote for any more money to support the war in a Iraq without a plan to start bringing U.S. troops back home. Personally I disagree with this stance because even though I am totally against the Iraq war and want our U.S. troops to be back home as fast as possible, I have come to the conclusion that we cant just stop providing the troops with money because they need the best equipment possible. We must continue to support the troops by providing them with money, but at the same time we must urge the President and the rest of Congress to try to get all the troops back home as fast as possible and hopefully within the next year or two they will be able to get out of Iraq. The most important thing right now is to continue providing our troops with money, not taking money away from them.
I admit it, when 9/11 occurred and President Bush vowed to punish those responsible, I was glad that he was going after those who had struck us at our very core. However, tracking down Osama Bin Laden is one thing, but invading Iraq in search of WMDs did not help our problem with terrorism. We should have kept our military searching for the man who is the largest and most recognizable face for the world of terrorism. Instead we sent such a large number of troops into a country that is full of different ideas on how the world should work. Our problem wasn't with the Iraqi regime that we removed from power (however terrible they may have been), but with the world of terrorism. Our money and resources should be going towards that rather than the war in Iraq.
I have mixed thoughts about the prospect of pulling our troops out of Iraq, and I believe that there are no good options at this point. I have to recall a quote that I remember Colin Powell saying when he told us "if you break it, you own it." Powell believed from the start that a US invasion was a bad call. Now we are responsible for our own mess. I think that when a government reaches the point of having no good options, the people--both home and abroad--are at that point experiencing a failed policy. This is largely the result of the leadership of inexperienced policy makers and a system of trial-and-error that is only making matters worse. If someone tells you that it's not about money, it's about money. Likewise, if someone tells you it's not about oil, you better believe it's about oil! When last I checked, a barrel of oil was priced at $80.57. A worst-case senario predicts that a pullout from the Middle East would could result in oil skyrocketting to $300 a barrel, which would result in our gas prices reaching up to as high as $8 per gallon: an unimaginable figure. With this, as well as other significant reasons, pulling out or staying in at this point in the game is an exceedingly expensive, political, moral decision.
When talking about the Iraq war, someone always brings up the notion that the reasons for the war were unclear or that Bush deceived the public into entering Iraq in the first place. However, it’s just too easy to ask these questions four years later. I found it funny to watch the same democrats, who voted to go to war, condemn Bush and claim that they were fooled. They are only exploiting the situation for their own political benefit, drawing support from the under informed masses. Most of the time, when someone denounces the war in Iraq they can’t even provide an original answer to why it is wrong, rather they are just opposed to the idea of war as a whole. It’s just a continuation of the “hippie” trend. Democrats control the House and the Senate but their only solution to the war is to create a timeline to cut funding to Iraq, ultimately ending it. Given things didn’t turn out the way we planned and WMD’s weren’t found, our efforts can still be justified in ending a Hitler-like leader and in uncovering atrocities that were before unknown. How can our governing bodies show such disregard for an area of the world that is in desperate need of guidance? And now that we are there and have uncovered a hotbed of social and political unrest, how can we just back away? It would be like lifting up a carpet and finding dust swept under it, but neglecting to sweep it up. It’s just postponing future problems. The bottom line is that the United States needs to re-organize and look at the present instead of the past. An example of what Iraq can be is Yugoslavia today. Suffering from similar internal conflict, the U.S helped to put it on a stable track. What’s done is done, and now we need to move forward as a collective unit to sort out our problems in Iraq.
I just found this article and it explains that the Iranian Parliament "voted to designate the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Army as terrorist organizations." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmandinejad announced that he "told the U.N. General Assembly that an agreement reached last month between his country and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over its disputed nuclear program has, in the Iranian view, settled the matter." I think the war in Iraq is turning into a much bigger problem than the government expected. I think the only option now is to pull troops out. It is turning into almost an identical situation as Vietnam. It is clear that the people in Iraq do not appreciate our presence and now they have even labeled us as terrorists. Our motives are no longer clear and more and more innocent people are dying everyday. It will be interesting to see what happens after the next election when a new president is elected and how he or she handles our current situation. I support the troops fighting bravely for our country and I pray for their families. After five long years of fighting, I think it's time we withdrawal our troops because we have to realize that you can't help someone that doesn't want your help. Whether or not we build up the stability in Iraq, who is to say it won't crumble when we leave? I think we need to leave the issue alone and let the dust settle. If there are still problems, we can rethink our position as this "world policeman" and try to start again. Without any clear motives or intentions, our being there is not a good idea. -Katy Johnson
The U.S. Senate on September 20, rejected 70-28, ending combat operations and setting a withdrawing from Iraq by June 2008. I chose to write about this because I am against troop withdraw and thought it was interesting to see how General Petraeus testimony has effected congress. Just this spring congress passed legislation, which was ultimately vetoed by President Bush, that would have required withdraw by May 2008. In this vote, war opponents could only gather 28 votes.
Withdrawing troops from Iraq would be a mistake. American troops in Iraq are not defeated. General Petraeus reported to congress last week that the surge had been a military success, though not a political success. Failure would have results around the world. Iraq is not in a bubble isolated from the world. All you have to do is look at the example of Vietnam to see what could happen. Withdrawing from Vietnam had negative consequences that are too often ignored. After the fall of South Vietnam, the governments of Laos and Cambodia also fell to communism. Throughout Southeast Asia millions of people lost their lives. The Soviet Union took advantage of American weakness and invaded Afghanistan and the Islamic Revolution in Iran also took advantage of American weakness. As bad as the consequences of Vietnam were, I think a withdraw from Iraq would have the potential to be even worse. A withdraw would embolden Iran, who is seeking to counter U.S. influence in the Middle East and to built nuclear weapons (they say they’re not.). It could cause sectarian violence unlike anything that we have yet seen in Iraq. There is also great fear that an American withdraw could create a power vacuum that would allow the violence in Iraq to erupt into a regional war throughout the Middle East.
An American withdraw would also have a negative impact on an international system that is so often anarchic. The U.S. invasion of Iraq gave meaning to the numerous UN resolutions against Saddam. The U.S. sent the signal to nations around the world that they must follow the rules or be held accountable. With a U.S. withdraw from Iraq, states such as North Korea, or Iran could feel that they can defy the United Nations over their nuclear programs because there is no one to enforce resolutions.
To me the Iraq War has some relevants; I understand that after 9/11 the Govt had to send a point to Americans and the rest of the world that attacks on our soil wont go unpunished. I support our Govt's fast reaction and also all the men and women that have and are still giving their lives for us. To me I don't understand why our Gov't felt it necessary to say were going into Iraq in search of weapons of mass distruction. When its all about the oil and only the oil as to why were over there now. Bush says once things are under control we will gradually pull out, this is a lie if I ever heard one. All you have to do is read the history books after you destroy a nations infrastructure its takes an exceptional amount of time and money to build them back up so that they can govern themselves once again. To me my feelings about the Iraq war are that were there now, lets get the job done and then come home ASAP.
I would first like to say that I support our troops for fighting to defend our country and show great nationalism. But I do feel as if a lot of what is going on with the war is behind closed doors and not allowing us citizens to know where we stand. How do you really know when we have achieved what we went in for? I do believe we had to have fought back in order to let nations know we won't go down easily and we are powerful country, but the questions that remains unanswered is have we stayed there too long?
I found this article on another blog site, which actually had some good points to make. But this article discusses Congress' recent decision to increase the federal debt limit to to well over 9 trillion dollars, will also giving the Bush administration an additional 9 billion dollars to fund the war.
Now that I have summarized the article, allow me to respond...
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
I thought Clinton, Obama, and Edwards were Anti-War right? At least thats what people keep telling me. Why didn't they vote against this? They are too busy campaigning to vote on a matter that is costing Americans trillions of dollars. Obama has missed something like 25 percent of his votes. Isn't it his job to vote?
You know, at least the republicans have stood by the war since the beginning. At least they are committed to something. But look at the "Democratic Congress". They can stop this war at anytime, just cut the money, simple. Yet for someone reason they do not. What good has the democratic congress done yet?
The Democrats are not cutting funding for the troops because they know that the consequence would be disaster, both for Iraq and for their political future. Obviously, we all want the war to end as soon as possible. However, withdrawing troops too soon would plunge the Middle East into chaos and ruin everything that our troops have accomplished in the last four years. Besides, cutting funding for the troops would not mean immediate withdrawal. The troops would keep fighting for a while; they would just have less equipment. Part of the current funding bill includes money for new mine-resistant vehicle that are proven to save lives. America would never forgive Democrats for denying the troops the money they need.
In regards to the war, I feel kind of bad about the whole thing because, I'll admit, I was gung-ho for war way back in 2003 (wow... has it really been that long?) and now, I regret backing the war. At the time we had been lied to and told that there were WMD's and just the thought of Iraq having such weapons that could be used against us made me really want to go. However, in the 4 years since then, we've caught Saddam, discovered there wasn't any WMD's (at least none that we've found), and become mired in a conflict that is becoming extremely costly not only monetary wise but in human lives. I have a good friend who's boyfriend just returned from Iraq safely and I can honestly say that I've never seen anyone worry about the well being of someone as she did. If thats just how a girlfriend is feeling, imagine how parents and families are feeling of the boys over there. That, coupled with what seems like a situation that is becoming increasingly difficult to pull out of, the Iraq war is way more than we all bargained for. And even more troubling, the rumblings that the Bush administration wants to go into Iran will only spell more trouble.
I just read this article about the whole Blackwater controversy. This gives yet more proof to the idea that perhaps in our own way, we Americans coming into Iraq are acting more like terrorists ourselves rather than the liberators we so boldy call ourselves to other foreign nations. This is just one case in which people were caught in the act of doing something wrong. Think of all the possible things that could be happening without the real wrong-doers being caught. On the news all you hear about is how many American soldiers died during combat, but they rarely ever mention the amount of innocent Iraqi civilians caught in the crossfire of this war.
Although there are “bad things” going on there, I think it is quite extreme to say we are acting as terrorists. No country or anything is perfect and I think we are too quick to criticize situations that we don’t understand. I was one of the many to completely support the war a few years ago, although I was worried about what was going to come of it. As far as what I feel now, I think there needs to be some kind of a change. I do not believe we should just pull out because I think everything we have established will just crumble. Also I think there needs to be a plan for withdrawal in the next few years.
I feel that the war in iraq has been the biggest waste of money this country has spent ever. George Bush has not done at all a good job of handling this situation. All the war has done is just make the countries in the middle east and around the world hate us and think that we(United State) are bullies. This is not the image that i think that many of the people in this country want to have and presidents before bush i would imagine are very disappointed in his handle of this. I hope that we as a nation clean up this mess and get our troops and clean up the image of the U.S
I would like to a respond to an above post on the idea of the US troops acting like "terriosts". It is absolutely insane to compare America's interaction in the Iraq war with those of terriosts. Yes the media does an excellent example of showing the tradegies of war, which with any war are horrific. But it is important to remember that the media is a bussiness. It will only show and deminstrate what it knows will sell the most papers. Issue saying that operations are going as planned and without trouble do not sell. Flaunting tragedies and mistakes does sell papers. The media also has a bias whether they try to be honest or not. If you talk to soldiers how have returned from Iraq they will say that in places the soldiers have done many great things.
So here we go again with the topic that continues to kill many innocent people. I believe that there is no need for troops to be in Iraq because they should have the sovereignty to make their own religious decisions and the United States should not intervene. The reasons given to us about invading Iraq are just a cover-up for the selfish reasons our greedy president trespassed this country. The US government is and has only looked out for their best interest. They don’t want to help this country rebuild a government, and sustain itself; the US government went in for oil, revenge, and power. These reasons are not reasons to go to war and have our loyal soldiers lose their lives for, therefore it is a pointless war and it needs to end now.
I feel that the war in Iraq began as a bad idea, but it was really something that had to be done. Iraq and Sadam never directly attacked the US, but they always posed a threat to us. My views in politics are completely Liberal, but I'm not to say I don't support the President in the time of war. I feel that the US really stepped up and did was many countries wanted to do, but they just didn't have the resources to do so. Getting Sadam out of power was the right thing to do even if it seems as an act of breaking sovereignty. He may not have had WMDs but I'm sure he'd be the first one to use them if he did.
I agree in some aspects that the war in Iraq was a good idea. But I also think that going to war in Iraq was completely idealistic. Looking back, it is almost like a movie the way certain war mongers in the Bush administration promoted going to war. I was convinced. Now, I realize yes war was inevitable, and yes war on Iraq probably did benefit America. Yet now it's time to get real. A plan to get out of Iraq needs to be set in motion.
i believe that the overthrowing of iraq could be considered an inevitability but i dont see why the united states couldnt have waited for the UN to back the entire issue. obviously, iraq, saddam hussein himself, and the entire idea of them being capable of nuclear warfare was a frightening idea but there is really no reason that after 15-20 years of UN weapons inspectors going into iraq, we couldnt have waited a little more time before launching an invasion to disarm them. the fact that we did proceed with the disarmament shows the rest of the world that we are semi-incapable of waiting and having the world behind us before declaring war on a country that will obviously have massive political repercussions. on the global scale, it is a little difficult to tell which might have been worse: to let iraq continue to operate under their current regime or to have the majority of the world viewing us as pushy, flaunting our power to make countries to conform to our way of thinking. essentially the invasion of iraq has many pros and cons right now and we wont be able to see which weighs more on the global socio-political stage until we are no longer a real presence in iraq and we can see the results of our coup. -mack shane
Lately there has been a great deal of discussion about a pull out in Iraq. I believe that removing troops in Iraq would be a bad decision. In fact, I believe that there should have been talk of an increase many years ago so that control of the country could be attained. By removing the forces the chances for control only grow more slim. Most of the debate is about the decision in the first place. The decision, whether right or wrong was made, and now its about how best to deal with the decision which left us in a draining war in Iraq.
In my opinion the war in Iraq has gone on for far too long, and the reasons we have for being there are becoming more and more unbelieveable than before. I feel that we are just there because the President does not have any other ideas of what to do about Iraq and Afghanistan other than to keep sending more troops, and spending more money. The estimates for the budget in 2008 are ridiculous in this article. President Bush's proposal for the war for 2008 started at $42 billion dollars and ended up at $190 billion dollars. Also at the moment they have 20 combat brigades over in Iraq each about 3500-4500 soldiers. They say that this number will decrease, but who is really to say what will happen. As they say in the article, we've heard the same tune before.
I am in agreement with the people who have said that the war in Iraq was a justified move after 9/11, but has gone on too long. I think that if it had been a quick fix to a major terrorist problem, we would be justified for leaving troops there as long as we have. However, since I do not believe enough advances have been made, and our loss of troops and the money that has been spent is equivalent to the gain we have made (more like NOT made), I do not see how we are justified in keeping troops fighting, risking their lives, and sucking money from the government. Not to mention, I believe Bush's plan for extracting our absurd number of troops stationed in Iraq is just a slow fix to an immediate problem. He is trying to play both sides of the field, and satisfy those who support the war with those who do not, simultaneously,which just cannot happen.
Where oh where to begin? Well let's begin with the future, in a recent democratic debate the candidates were asked "Within the length of your first term would you be able to get America out of Iraq?" The unanimous answer from the top three candidates was no. That does not give a bright future to those of us who want out of the war, and who also happen to be democratic (or for anyone who wants out of the war as republican frontrunners would not leave in their first term either.) So let's look at Iraq today. Where is it headed? It would seem as if the surge was working, but why then not add more troops? If something works why not go all out with it, instead of isolating it to one spot of the country. This is odd overall that Bush congratulates himself and others on the surge working, and then says that he is taking troops out (presumably what most Americans want,) but the exact amount he would take out was the amount from the surge. So it would almost feel as if the last several months were a big loop. We put the troops in, to take them back out. I think this whole thing is a big mess that can't be answered in bits so short as campaign slogans.
Ok, I'm going to ask it. Is this a Religious War? For example, Blackwater, the "guns for hire", is run by a Christian family that donates money and marries into the conservative side of our gov. President Bush is a Christian and uses the word "evil" when talking about the enemy and "evil" is a religious concept. Jihad means "striving in the way of God" and there is a whole lot of that going on, as we all know. So, although there is a lot that plays into our current situation, are we secretly in a religious war? Stephane Stewart
I don't mean to change subjects without commenting, but I don't have much to say on the previous post. I know this doesn't directly have to do with the Iraq war, but I think it's closely related enough..
While it is only the third attack since June, and that's definitely a good thing that there haven't been many, I think maybe this is something to worry about. When I read the former director of the CIA's book (George Tenet) about everything dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan, he explained a lot about the mentality of the Taliban, insurgents, and so on. I don't know if people realize how big of an issue it is, but it's definitely something to consider. A lot of people start to forget things if they aren't happening that often, but what they don't realize is how the goal of terrorism doesn't just disappear. With the reemergence of more attacks in Afghanistan now, there should definitely be a worry of more activity from the Taliban, who claimed responsibility for the attack. We haven't really had to worry about them too much recently, but Tenet says that in the intelligence community it is a well-known fact that there are always more planned attacks on our soil, and other countries as well. Just thought I'd comment on the fact that something as small as the third attack in five months may not seem like much, but it may end out turning into more.
I feel that we, the US, is doing way too much in the middle east. We have been trying to control other countries in the middle east for many years. We say that it is to help them but we all realize that our own interests are our motives. I disagree with our policy in Iraq; i feel like the US should stay out of other countries' business, even if we feel we can help them. We have too many worries of our own that are overlooked that we should take care of first. Poverty, homelessness, and crime, among others, are issues we need to take care of at home.
62 comments:
Hey everybody, I just read this article about the war and I wanted to give some input about it.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/03/bush.iraq/index.html
I feel that from the start of this war in Iraq, the motives and intentions of what exactly we went in there for are quite unclear. After 9/11 occured I was an avid believer in the fact that we needed to take action against the terrorist group that attacked us. It seems now, however, that we are fighting a war with no guidance and no real leadership. I am 100% in support of the men and woman who fight over there and dedicate there lives to the cause. In the article, Bush keeps stating that once there is stability brought into the country, we will gradually pull out. I genuinly do not feel that there is still any real plan as to what or when our next course of action will be, and I think as a country, we should not be kept in the dark about this pressing matter that affects so many families across America.
Mike Poznansky
i just read this article about how 6 US troops and 12 more civilians were killed recently in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/05/iraq.main/index.html
There were six US troops killed and 12 more Iraqi civilians killed in a recent roadside bombing in Habibya and in a suicide car bombing in Northern Iraq. This does not make sense to me because the Iraqi people are hurting more of their own people than they are US troops. The troops and the United States are still trying to figure out exactly what happened and who detonated the bomb and also where they attained the bomb from. They suspect that Iran had supplied the bomb, but Iran of course has denied being a part of this. Hopefully they will find out more about this so that it will not happen again.
Robert O'Reilly
I feel that when we went into this war we didnt expect it to be this long, this bad, or cost this much. I think it should of been thought of more deeply before we just went over there, but now that we are going on the fifth year of being there we cannot leave now. I think its crucial that we dont leave now until everything is seen through even though we are losing many lives and it is costing a lot of money to be over there. Take a look at this website to see how much your state alone is spending for our country to be in this war.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html
Kristin Iorii
Every time I think about the war in Iraq I become sick to my stomach and disgusted. The lies that the current administration are feeding the public are a joke. They are not even good lies. When one lie falls through, another one simple is put in its place. We were first told Iraq had direct links to Al Quida, and this was a sufficient reason to invade a sovereign country. The next lie we were fed was the idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. There is chatter now that the military is gearing up for another strike, this time against the near nuclear armed Iran. The scary part is that in my mind there is a small chance that our president and his administration actually believe their own lies. I cant shake the nagging feeling that beyond all this, there is some sinister force dominating our foreign politics. By this force I am of course refusing to the very powerful business interests that are so entrenched in Washington.
Ryan Davenport
I didn't agree with entering the war on the basis that we entered on. However, I feel that Saddam Hussein needed to be stopped. He was a cruel man, and to let him continue with his acts of cruelty within his country would be wrong.
But I feel that regardless of people's opinions on whether or not we should be in the war, every American should support the war. Without the support of everyone back at home, what are they fighting for? Sure, people support the troops, but it's the support of the CAUSE that is necessary. Regardless of whether or not people like our government and its decisions, it is detrimental to the safety of our troops to criticize it to the extreme level that America has currently taken it to.
If we think about it logically, it is impossible to win a war with a cause that is largely unsupported in the mainstream. A huge part of the reason we lost in Vietnam was a lack of homeland support. If we think about the most successful American wars in history, we are reminded of World War I and World War II. When we think of those two wars, especially, we are met with an image of support from the entire nation. Everyone did their part. The government was fully supported in every choice and decision made. I'm not saying we should have been in Iraq to begin with, but we are. We can't go back and change time. By leaving now, we would leave Iraq in a state of turmoil and subject our own nation to a higher threat from nations who will then think that America has a weak government that goes back on its beliefs. And America is anything but weak.
In response to Jessica Jackman's post, it is perfectly true that Saddam Hussein was a cruel tyrant. There are many such people in the world and many of them are American allies. Should we invade every country that is ruled by a cruel tyrant? The problem with this logic is that you may well end up making the situation worse than it previously was, as is the case in Iraq. Of course, let us not forget that invading a Muslim country will not exactly curb terrorism.
The notion that every American ought to support the war simply to give it meaning is absurd. Why should someone support the war if they feel that it is immoral or harmful to America? The question is whether or not the cause of the war is worth supporting. A second question is whether or not our continued presence in Iraq furthers or hinders that cause. Here is a third question: how precisely is it detrimental to the safety of our troops to criticize our government? What about American soldiers who criticize our government? It seems to me that what is detrimental to the safety of our troops is having them stay in Iraq. It is detrimental to Americans in general to have a situation that fosters anti-Americanism and religious extremism.
You say that "By leaving now, we would leave Iraq in a state of turmoil and subject our own nation to a higher threat from nations who will then think that America has a weak government that goes back on its beliefs. And America is anything but weak."
1. Iraq already is in a state of turmoil. The fact is that nobody knows for certain what exactly will happen if we leave.
2. The war in Iraq has weakened us in at least two ways. First, as I stated above, it fosters religious extremism. Second, our support around the globe has been shot because of this war.
I do not really believe that withdrawing from Iraq could possibly damage our credibility much further. Certainly, countries like Russia and China are interested in challenging our superpower status, but one could make the argument that our occupation in Iraq actually makes it easier for them to do this. It bogs us down, after all.
I believe a war with Saddam Hussein was inevitable. In class we've talked a lot about sovereignty and what it means for a country to be a sovereign state. Saddam Hussein, it seems, was not fortunate enough to understand this concept. He had no problem annexing Kuwait in 1990, and showing no respect to the orders of the United Nations. He had no problem bombing and using chemical weapons against citizens of his own country either. The notion that he was a threat (domestically and globally) is hard to refute. He showed that his was willing to ignore the UN, and more importantly (and more frightening), willing to kill for his deranged ideas.
I am not defending how the war was handled, only that Saddam Hussein was a threat to any country that respects the UN or accepts human rights.
-Gabe DiPietro
While our administration continues to flounder, both Americans and Iraqis continue to die. In a dilemma with no exit strategy in sight, I can’t help but wonder—what exactly are they dying for? It seems as of right now, all that concerns President Bush are opportunities for photo ops and dishonest claims of success. Having claimed Baghdad to be a "stabilized success" why was it that his only visiting agenda was to pose for photos in an isolated and well-fortified air base in Anbar Province? It is time for the President to set aside pride and personal agendas and send our troops home.
In response to Gabe...the United States directly defied the UN and thus the legal sovereignty of Iraq when it invaded the country. According to your explanations as to why Saddam needed to be taken out of power...it seems George Bush would be just as deserving at this point.
We cannot allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking Saddam was taken out of power simply because he was a bad guy. Were that the case, maybe the United States would have taken the intiative and defied the UN in other parts of the world as well, such as Sudan.
-Nick Sarlo
Any thoughts on General Petraeus's hearing before the Senate?
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/watching-the-iraq-hearings-day-2/index.html?hp
We cannot win the war in Iraq, or any war for that matter without fully supporting the effort, not just the troops. If the country does not want to win the war then we will lose. Henry Ford once said, "Whether you think you can, or you think you can't you're right." This country does not fully support the war effort and it has been detrimental to the war. In the beginning before the war started around 70% of the country thought the war was a good idea, but now it is in the 30% range. How can this country foolishly think that now we should not see this war through to the end and leave Iraq a mess when most Americans supported the invasion?
Geoff Andersen
My thoughts, Geoff, are that you are probably right when we are thinking about democracies. However, does public opinion matter for the successful execution of a war in a non-democracy?
To say we as a country must remain in Iraq because we supported it in the beginning is ridiculous.
The fact is we should never have been there in the first place.
The US invasion of Iraq violated both international law and common morality. The moment our premptive invasion of Iraq began we violated the Charter of the United Nations, specifically Article 1, Section 4, which states: ''All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state... ''
But even if we disregard the fact that we trampled on international law, even if certain situations do call for violent exceptions to international agreements...we STILL had no right to invade.
To me it seems our government, by delcaring a very Orwellian "War on Terror", opened up the door after 9/11 to invade any country they felt. All they needed to do was label them as terrorists, or as allies of terrorists.
Did the Bush administration ever link Iraq to the War on Terror? I don't recall personally, but they never bothered to point out how completely different they were.
To me it seems they used the momentum, the fear from 9/11 and terrorism, to fuel the war fires in the country. They abused our rising sense of nationalism and redirected our fury away from actual terrorism, and for some reason towards Iraq. They talked about how Iraq MIGHT have WMDs, how they MIGHT some day get ONE nuclear weapon, they convinced us that this tiny country across the world from us actually posed some significant threat to our safety.
And we fell for it.
Even if Iraq did have these weapons, that does not present a clear and present danger that would justify war. Other nations have such weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons, Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons (and have come close to using them).. And what country has by far the largest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world? And has used them with deadly consequences to countless people: in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Southeast Asia?
No, even if this tiny country in the Middle East had half the weapons we "knew" they did, they posed no real threat to us.
And then theres always the argument that we went in because Saddam was a terrible person...theres no denying Saddam was a tyrant. But not even this fact could justify our entrance into Iraq. After all, we remained silent when Saddam slaughtered the Kurds, when he used chemical and biological weapons against his own people. Hell, afterwards in the 1980's our economic support of the country increased.
Our history in the Middle East is like a big game...a game where we switch sides constantly, lie to our allies and enemies alike, lie to our citizens in order to accomplish things such as securing assets in the area. All one needs to do is look at history, and it becomes obvious we are not in there for any reason our government told us. Look at how willingly our government played games with these people.
If we truly were invading for such noble causes as human rights, then it is likely we would have forces throughout Africa as well where millions have died at the hands of tyrants.
No, to say we should stay simply because we're already there is wrong in my opinion. Staying in Iraq is only further hurting our international image. In fact by staying in Iraq we are essentially playing into Bin Laden's plans. In 2004 he made it quite clear what his intentions were...to bleed out the American economy. To essentially bankrupt America similar to what happened to the Soviet Union over a span of 10 years. These people won't give up, they will not leave, and they cannot be defeated by traditional means. They KNOW how much money this war is costing us, they knew ahead of time the toll it would take. But they knew that we would play into it.
"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations."
Every day we remain in this country we lose money. Every day we remain people die. And essentially regardless of what we do, Al Qaeda wins. If we leave, they make us look weak. If we stay, they will continue to bleed us as a nation. We need to swallow our pride and get out before we devastate the area even more. While we may have removed a tyrant, in the process we opened a door for terrorist groups to come in, removed any stabilization that remained in the country, and caused the deaths of thousands of Iraqi citizens.
Our government made a mistake.
We made a mistake.
Regardless of whether we supported it in the beginning, we need to get out.
Nick Sarlo
Television ads are run encouraging President Bush to "Do something about Darfur." What if today the country unanimously decided to go to Darfur to stop the violence there, but three or four years into the war the situation continued to get worse? Would the country again decide that it had seen enough and that the fight was not worth fighting anymore because of the human life lost and the expense? Would all the soldiers and marines have died in vain because we pulled out before the country could be stabilized? The region would most likely end up worse than when we started. Is this situation any different than our current situation? A country united to go to war, and then a country divided to end the war. If we as a country make that decision, by popular poll, public opinion, or electing officials, then we need to see it through to the end. Regardless if anyone feels as though they have been deceived by the administration regarding WMDs, terrorist links, or genocide.
The insurgency will only be defeated by the local Iraqi people and politicians. The US military gives them the confidence to slowly overcome the insurgents in Iraq. The whole purpose of the troop surge was to increase the security level long enough for this to work. We obviously can't stay forever and that is why the military is working on an exit strategy. General Petraeus has made his report independent of The White House and the Pentagon so that it would be an honest assessment. If he believes that the surge has worked and that he will start bringing troops home as a result, then I must believe him. We are not in Iraq and he is, he should know the situation better than any of us can get from the news. We give up too easily as a result of the negative news that we hear. Go in search of the positive news about Iraq, its out there.
Geoff Andersen
One of the main purposes of the surge was to given the Iraqi government "breathing" room to come to some sort of reconciliation that has not yet happened nor does it appear that it will any time in the near future. In fact instead of working towards real progress they decided to take a month long vacation.
Previous strategies failed and we gave the surge a shot. That has had mixed results at best and yet the Iraqi government is no where closer to any kind of result.
Unfortunately there are no easy solutions in Iraq. If we leave it isn't going to turn out well for anyone. The United States will look weak internationally but we already do because of this mismanaged debacle the Bush administration got us into. I agree with Geoff we cannot stay in Iraq forever. The Iraqi's have had time. It is time for the U.S. to start moving towards pulling our forces out of Iraq with a goal of ending our military committment in Iraq sometime next year.
Charles "C.J." Augustine
The reason we need to leave Iraq is NOT because the situation is bleak (at best). The reason we need to leave is because we are not supposed to be there. The reason we need to leave is because, completely despite the troop surge, even this unbiased report says we don't know where we'll stand after the we return to pre-surge levels.
There could be nothing but great news coming from Iraq, and that still wouldn't justify our actions. The fact that people continue to die as a direct result of our invasion, as a direct result of our destabilization of the area just gives us more reason to get out. Even though leaving now goes completely against common morality, what are we going to be able to do to help the Iraqi people? Iraq is a failed state, and remains a failed state despite our years of intervention...in fact, according to the Failed States Index of 2007 Iraq is ranked 2nd worst in the world behind Sudan...all the good news in the world couldn't change that.
We are continuing to make a mess in that entire region, repeating the exact same things over and over since after WWII. We're even paying former Sunni insurgents to fight al Qaeda in Anbar, just fueling the sectarian civil war even more.
We do NOT know for sure whether the troop surge is even the reason for the "decrease" in violence in a select few places in Iraq. Other independent reports contradict the military's recent one (GAO report http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071222t.pdf, NIE report http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM44_070823iraq_nie_-_kj's_-_08-23-07.pdf,Jones report http://media.csis.org/isf.pdf). Some critics suggest the military has such low findings partly because of what they determine to be sectarian violence, as opposed to simple criminal activity (which is not included). http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/09/07/-paul-krugman-time-to-take-a-stand/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwelcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F09%2Fpaul-krugman-time-to-take-stand.html&frame=true).
Many speculate that the reason for drops in violence in these select cities is not because of the surge at all, but rather as a result of successful "ethnic clensing" by Shiite militiamen (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20546328/site/newsweek). Some reports by the AP doubt any drops occured at all (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20440397/).
You can always check websites like http://goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm and read a good story here and there, but people have to be aware of contradicting reports. Just because he is a general, we do NOT have to believe him. If we look 40 years ago at a very similar report on Vietnam, we can see that simply believing these reports based on flashy medals can have bad results.
I'm not saying he is lieing, and I'm not trying to discredit the general. But we cannot make the same mistake and blindly follow people because they are our military, etc. We must take into account what this general has reported, but we must also take into account the contradicting reports done by independent study groups.
This isn't about pride, honor, strength, or even victory any more. I'd like to see us leave iraq as a beautiful, peaceful country. However our intervention has resulted in a religious civil war that we cannot win...even if we disregard the fact we aren't supposed to be here, we have to consider that maybe us staying isn't going to help at all but instead is fueling the insurrgency and bleeding out our resources (not to mention resulting in even more deaths).
We cannot up and leave, but in my opinion we need to have plans drawn up to be gone by next year.
Nick Sarlo
An article from the New York Times titled “Officials Cite Long-Term Need for U.S. in Iraq” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/washington/12policy.html?ex=1347336000&en=ad4071a2b2d45df0&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
The article touches on the controversial issue of the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Bush plans to address the country this Thursday but his overall strategy in Iraq has remained largely unchanged. He is expected to state that no more than a gradual reduction of U.S. troops will occur in the coming months yet plans on leaving about 130,000 American troops in Iraq by next summer. Many of the democratic leaders seem to feel that the president’s approach is “an insult to the intelligence of the American people” Some of the even feel that it sounds “like a 10-year, at least, commitment to an open-ended presence and war”.
The American public will be shocked at the prospect of an undefined, long-term presence in Iraq. Bush will be “hard-pressed” to justify American’s presence in Iraq if there is no political progress in Iraq over the next year. When General Petraeus was asked if this strategy in Iraq is “making America safer” he avoided the question and stated he was doing his best “achieve our objectives in Iraq.” And when asked again he said “Sir, I don’t know, actually.”
Democrats still did not have enough votes to cut off funding for the war or set deadlines for an American withdrawal. Many republicans who were once on Bush’s side no longer believe that he has a workable strategy.
Something must change!!!!!
Alison Burke
I have scanned over most of the posts in this topic and I am disgusted. Everyone likes to talk about how our "administration is floundering" and that the war "makes them sick". I am not against free speech in a way, shape, or form, but I need to put a word in for the right-wing side of this argument. I am insupport of the descision to go to war and I will always stand behind our current president. Just the blatant disrespect for our current president from the far-left media in this country makes me sick. Free speech is one thing, but slandering the most powerful man in the world, and the protector of our freedom with no viable backing is ridiculous. I have quoted a section of an article that can be found at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10499001/site/newsweek/
"The Jews of Europe are now the Kurds of Iraq, and the Shiites, and the Marsh Arabs. The point of war is not only to defend one's own country from attack but also to free from the jaws of death millions of innocent human beings who lack the military means to secure their own freedom. This may not be a universally supported political or military view of war, but it is a religious view of war, and it is my view of this and other wars. I do not know a single Kurd or a single Marsh Arab or a single Iraqi Shiite, but I do know that they have been slaughtered by the thousands, and because of this war they are now free. The Iraqi killing machine has been destroyed. I also know, and every person of even moderate intelligence also knows, that if our troops withdraw now, before victory has been fully achieved they will be slaughtered again. When I say never again in memory of the Holocaust, I don't mean 'never again Jews,' I mean 'never again anyone.'"
At least this guy knows what he is talking about. This war needed to happen and it needs to be finished.
Again, I feel it necessary to point out that by invading Iraq we have made the situation worse for Iraqis, not better. In the article by Rabbi March Gellman, Gellman states that "The Iraqi killing machine has been destroyed." Yes, and it has been replaced by several more killing machines, not the least of which is Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Gellman seems to be concerned with saving the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny, but he does not seem to consider very much the ramifications of such a policy. There is no guarantee, in the first place, that the government that eventually replaces the Hobbseian state of Iraq will be any better. From the looks of it, it may well be worse. Second, the Iraq War has spawned a whole new generation of people who hate the United States. It has given Al Qaeda a powerful recruiting tool, which endangers everyone in the world. Third, it can potentially destabilize the region and lead to regional conflict. Last, let us not forget that in addition to the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have been butchered and maimed (perhaps it is in the hundreds of thousands), there are millions who are displaced either internally or who have had to flee to other countries. This not only deprives Iraq of many educated people, but it puts strains on neighboring countries such as Syria that receive these immigrants. When the more educated and secular skilled people leave Iraq, religious extremists are left with a more powerful voice in what happens to the nation.
Gellman also makes the usual claim that hawks make, which is that if we leave there will be a humanitarian crisis. Of course, the first point is that there already IS such a crisis. The second is that no one can be certain what will happen if we leave. The third is this may well be a phase that has to be gone through in Iraq, whether we like it or not. It may sound harsh, but it may be that we have to leave and let the Iraqis deal with these problems themselves. Some might argue that it is our duty to stay and use our military to lessen the violence. While I do think we should offer what humanitarian aid we can, the argument can also be made that the only real way to help the Iraqis at this point is to withdraw our military.
Gellman and other hawks would do well to consider the unintended consequences of interfering in the affairs of other nations.
Im just as much of a patriot as the next american, and a good old ass kickin to abolish tyrany where it shouldnt be is always a good cause to fight....but what is the cause now? What cause are we fighting for? And if you can come up with a just cause in your minds....do u think the soldiers in Iraq are proud to fight for that cause? Do you think they will charge to their to take a hill even though they may the last person alive in their unit? No, i highly doubt it. In the grand scheme of things, bush is probaby sipping Hi C with his buddies who came over his house to play on a big world size stratego board. except the moves they make affect real lives. When our troops have been reduced to mere pawns rather than men, brothers, fathers etc as they should be than i can not be patriotical in that cause. Its time to pull out of IRaq. if we dont we will just be there until the next president is elected, or for years and years. Besides it would be nice to have the cost of living cheaper without having to be shorted on things like automotive supplies, or oil, or gas, etc because we are too busy supplying a bullshit war first. its not even war, its just a big nature walk and killing people.
by the way that last one was ryan harrison.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?ei=5090&en=5a8349a0e944e61b&ex=1345176000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
If people have not yet read this, they should.
What people like Gellman fail to recognize is the immense instability that has resulted from our invasion. We have ignited not only an insurrgency, but a religious and civil war amongst the Iraqi people. We arm once-militant Sunnis to fight off insurgents and terrorists, but then those Sunnis go and use these weapons against Shiites in their militias. According to the above article, Shiite support from the police and Iraqi army results in the deaths of Sunni people, often with the help of the military and police force trained by us.
If anyone still believes we have some how rescued the Iraqi people, that we spared them from certain death and brought them freedom, take a look here: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
And as for post-troop surge: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/baghdad-surge/
It may not be "genocide", but there are genocides that have killed less.
"In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, 'We need security, not free food.”
-Nick Sarlo
I have no problem with fighting for a good cause and i feel that going into Afghanistan to find Bin Laden and take out Al Queada was as good a cause as there is, but i never thought entering Iraq was the right thing to do at the time and i still don't. I thought we should have kept our focus on Afghanistan until we got the job done (which we never did). Now i feel there is nothing good that can come from staying in Iraq or pulling out. I feel that President Bush is staying there to try to make up for the prior wrong doings and mistakes. It's time for him to cut his losses and move on.
The entire conflict with Iraq could be solved very easily if our ally "Turkey" would be more cooperative in the creation of a Kurdish State in Northern Iraq. Turkey has adamantly opposed such a state and has threatened military action if such a state were to be established. A three state solution with Kurdistan in the north and a Sunni and Shia state established elsewhere in Iraq would be in America's best interest. However, this is not a realistic opportunity so other choices need to be considered.
The Bush idea about democracy in a state like Iraq is a dangerous joke that will lead to disaster. Iraq has historically been a buffer state (since 1979) to help stop Iranian aggression, but there is a substantial risk that Iraq's majority Shia population would support Iran's nuclear program. In the worst possible case, we could expect that part of Iraq would be annexed to Iran giving Iran more oil reserves to control. (A similar situation would occur with the creation of a Palestinian state along the West Bank of the Jordan River as the Galilee would soon secede from Israel and join Palestine and other places in Israel would soon follow)
The best and only real solution to the conflict is to put in a new dictator that will provide security for the region and not threaten our allies as well as the moderate Arab states such as Egypt and Jordan. This will allow the United States and the West to continue to get oil and will buy us the necessary time to get a new energy source rendering oil obsolete and the Middle East thus irrelevant. Had the Western states carved up the Ottoman Empire in a more responsible manner rather than in a manner that would cripple the region as much as possible (the creation of Lebanon preventing sea access for Syria as well as the creation of Kuwait to block Iraq's access to the Persian gulf as the two best examples), democracy could potentially work. However, the idea of these three different groups all living together while also providing equal rights for the Christians and the Jews in Iraq is a pipe dream and waste of time and lives for us to pursue.
--Daniel Greenbaum
Last year I was able to attend a seminar at Clayton Hall. Part of the program was members of the Iraq Veterans Against the War speaking to us about their experience. They all expressed how when they were serving, they were completely in the dark as to what the mission was, and why we sent them there, and why they hadn't left yet. A typical day consisted of shooting innocent civilians who they thought were insurgents, or being attacked by someone they thought was just a civilian. The troops' morale is low, and when they come back we are not taking care of them the way we should. Veterans who clearly suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome are being told that they whatever psychological problems they have existed before they served, therefore not allowing them to get the treatment that should be paid for by the government because they cannot afford it.
Additionally, this war should not have ever happened the way it has. Originally, when the Constitution was written, the president needed Congress to send troops overseas. However, since the Vietnam era the law has been changed to increase executive power and allow the president to use troops. The creation of the CIA has not only given the president too much power, but allowed the federal government to interfere in other countries affairs and overthrow leaders who we dislike for our own selfish reasons, often replacing them with worse regimes because we do not take local people into consideration. Therefore, Geroge Bush should not have been legally been allowed to send troops to Iraq, and while yes the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, we have created instability in the region and ever since Geroge Bush said "mission accomplished" it seems like nothing has happened. The government should stop lying to its people and soldiers and start to treat them with the respect they deserve. Our Veterans make a sacrifice we will never be able to imagine and we treat them like garbage...that is injustice.
Brian Del Guercio
Hmmm, the war in Iraq. I think that when we first decided to invade Iraq, America was behind President Bush 100%. I know I was. Our country was in mourning for those lost during the 9/11 attacks. However, as we got over the initial shock, I think we all wondered why it was, exactly, that we invaded Iraq. The government claimed they had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and that Saddam Hussein was, in fact, linked to alQaeda. So a few years passed and we didn't have an luck finding the WMDs. And we also found out that Saddam had nothing to do with the terrosist attacks. One could conclude that we have waisted billions of dollars and the lives of American soldiers by fighting this pointless war. The sad part is that we are still fighting a war, that, in my opinion, is impossible to win. Our objectives were unclear when entering, therefore, how do we know when we have won/suceeded? The country is already billions of dollars in debt..... not including the Iraq war. I think we should not neccessarily pull our troops out immediately, but, instead, admit our mistake, and gradually pull our troops out of Iraq. When we know for certain, the exact position of Osama bin Laden and his alQaeda members, than i believe we strike with extreme force. But until than, we should preserve the lives of our troops and not put them in danger until absolutely necessary.
I believe that it has always been the intent of neo-conservatives in policy positions to invade Iraq and make and example of it in the interest of greater stability in the middle east. This is reflected from the stockpiles of US military materials that we had over there 4 years before we invaded!
There is irony here too, among these so-called neo-conservatives, the vanguard of jingoism--war-mongering, if you will--that none of them ever had any military experience. Their understanding was therefore untested and experimental. If you recall, Bush 1 knew better. Colin Powell knew better, and advised against invading. Both of them had military experience. Bush 2 was a draft-dodger. Cheney was a draft-dodger.
So what we have now is a young inexperienced President surrounded by aggressive, ambitious, inexperienced theoriticians pursuading him to declare and wage war, while more experienced, combat-seasoned advisors knew that while--pardon the metaphor--the dog might catch the care, he might not be able to drive it. So, in our case with the war in Iraq, the "dog" (Bush) has spent 4.5 years trying to learn to drive the car. Meanwhile, US and Iraqi people have suffered through his learning process. Not least is Bush's decision to disband the Iraqi army, which turned loose 50,000 armed men into the population, who then became the insurgiants against the US invasion. I believe that because of all this, we have taken just about every wrong turn in this saga that is the war on Iraq. And our ignorance shines brighter than ever. Our desire for war and money has neglected the fact that it takes cultural insight to make a difference. We have been idiots and have offended the Iraqi people every way we've turned.
Gordon Lippincott
Here is my commentary on the war: So American opinion, it seems, according to many forms of media, is against the war in Iraq. It is costing billions of dollars, many U.S. military lives, has hurt international relations with our allies, has been mis directed from the start under the Bush administration, and therefore it is easy to see why it is so unpopulair. I believed when the military actions in Iraq began that they had a great cause for such a course of action. Fast forward to now and all has changed in my mind. Yes we were lead to believe we had a great cause to invade Iraq: being a safe haven for alQueda terrorists, WMD's, and a genocidal dictator in Saddam Hussien, we couldn't let this area stay the same. Again, forgeting about all the shortfalls of leadership, the initial lack of armoured vehicles and bodyarmour, the rise in insurgency, the rise in U.S. casualties, and now the rise in troop levels, and focusing back to the current situation at hand: We are still there these years later with no plan to exit in site.
With billions of dollars invested not only in Iraq, but Afgahnistan as well, how can we now just pack up and leave reguardless of how un populiar the war is? What will the cost of leaving so early equal out to? An all out war with a terrorist lead Iraqi government that has united with Syria and Iran? A true training camp for the next generation of suicidal terrorists? Besides having our service men and women home and safe, and the lack of a money pit that is Iraq looming over our heads, what do we gain from leaving immedately? An immediate exit strategey is not the way to go right now, without a dramatic decline in insurgency, or a dramatic growth of native Iraqi government, neither of which are on the horizon. So be prepared to see the U.S. in Iraq past the election of the next president in 2008 because with the amount of money spent and lives lost in Iraq, leaving is going to be a much more complicated decision then entering Iraq ever was.
NOTE: that last one was by Brendon Butler.
There are so many aspects of the war in Iraq, and so many different ways to look at it. There is obviously much more at stake than the "freedom" of the Iraq's people and the effort to establish a functional democracy. To be specific, I am talking about money and American business interests in rebuilding Iraq (notabally the huge government contracts that come with it). There is an interesting article on CNN today http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/19/iraq.fateful.day/index.html . It is about private U.S. security forces and their prescence in Iraq, in this case Blackwater Security. There was an incident yesterday that has intensified the debate about private security forces and their patrols in Iraq. Blackwater killed a number of Iraqis who were apparentley doing nothing wrong. Iraq is now asking that private forces like this leave Iraq. One would think that a "Sovereign" nation such as Iraq would have the authority to make a private and foreign firm leave their country. I can't help believe that this will not happen though. The reason being is that companies like Blackwater are in Iraq to protect U.S. businesses and diplomats. And sense we are essentially the law in Iraq we will make the call right?
-Mike Werch
I have mixed feelings about the War in Iraq. I believe we went into this war under false pretenses. However now that we have taken control of the country it would be detrimental not only to the Iraqi people but to the United States as well. In this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/world/middleeast/19displaced.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/Iraq) posted yesterday the idea of splitting Iraq into three semiautonomous Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish regions seems to be impossible. The patterns suggest that despite the ethnic and sectarian animosity, Iraqis would rather continue to live in mixed communities Even more disconcerting is the fact that the numbers of internally displaced Iraqis has soared since the troop increase began. Many people have already moved once and the statistics are reflecting their second or, in some cases, their third move.
Kaitlin Keelan
President Bush acted with the backing of many other nations (a fact many people seem to forget) when the US (not just the president) entered into altercations with Iraq. He acted with the knowledge he had, and whether or not in our 20/20 hindsight it seems to have been the best choice, (though I believe it was necessary) it is a decision that cannot be overturned without serious repercussions. To leave the war in Iraq now, would be to deliberately leave a nation to chaos; how could any that claim to be acting for the good of the people believe that such an action could be beneficial? To leave the country now, would be to seriously undermine what little stability there is left in the Middle East as well as our own standing in the international community. To leave now would be to suggest that the United States does not follow through on its word – I do not believe that that is a door that we want to open. If the United States is shown to have no “backbone” (as such an action of pulling out immediately would suggest), other nations are less likely to take this country seriously in other matters. I think that the power of the United States and its standing in the national community would be greatly harmed by this.
C. Faith Woodworth
I feel that while the United States had good intentions of helping to establish a democratic Iraqi government, we put ourselves in a position where our troops are essentially stuck there until it happens. I think that the war in Iraq has been fruitless thus far and that we are making little to no progress while taking the lives of our soldiers. Though the US is a superpower and should use this to help countries striving to build a government like ours, I think that some reservation is necessary and that we have been interfering too much in other countries affairs.
Ann de la Montaigne
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/22/un.iraq/index.html
I just read a recent article from CNN and it discussed the United Nations boosting its presence in Iraq. The article talks about how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's assures that there's been "substantial improvement" in security and stability in Iraq. Additionally, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, argued that “the increased presence would not only support national reconciliation in Iraq, but also promote diplomatic relations between the country and its neighbors.”
I feel that the world nations that comprise the United Nations are working hard for world peace. However, it is at the expense of our troops that we are trying to rebuild Iraq. Our country is spending so much money that I understand it will be a waste if we leave early. However, I do not think our objectives going into this country were clear at all and by staying in Iraq will not make leaving in the future any easier.
-Erin Donahue
I read this article in the summer but I remembered it and thought I would share it with the class. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/opinion/16cordesman.html)
At the time, congress was deciding what to do about the $20 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states that the bush administration proposed. The author of the article believes that in order to secure the Middle East, we need to aid Saudi Arabia, who is a very strong ally and powerful country in the area. Moreover, it points out that the United States government tried to force a government on them that did not work. Instead, the Saudis created there own form of government that works for them. Perhaps this can be used as an example for Iraq. Sales to Saudi Arabia will take place with or without the United States. Sales will help the kingdom deal with the Iranian missile threat. Finally, Americans must face the facts that we need to build strong security relations, not all of our allies that are our idea of perfect.
Kaitlin Keelan
Hey, this article is about Senator Hillary Clinton and how she announced on Sunday that she won't vote for any more money to support the war in a Iraq without a plan to start bringing U.S. troops back home. Personally I disagree with this stance because even though I am totally against the Iraq war and want our U.S. troops to be back home as fast as possible, I have come to the conclusion that we cant just stop providing the troops with money because they need the best equipment possible. We must continue to support the troops by providing them with money, but at the same time we must urge the President and the rest of Congress to try to get all the troops back home as fast as possible and hopefully within the next year or two they will be able to get out of Iraq. The most important thing right now is to continue providing our troops with money, not taking money away from them.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/23/clinton.iraq/index.html#cnnSTCText
- Eric Goodman
The best and only way in my opinion to actually "support our troops" is to bring them home.
Nick Sarlo
I admit it, when 9/11 occurred and President Bush vowed to punish those responsible, I was glad that he was going after those who had struck us at our very core. However, tracking down Osama Bin Laden is one thing, but invading Iraq in search of WMDs did not help our problem with terrorism. We should have kept our military searching for the man who is the largest and most recognizable face for the world of terrorism. Instead we sent such a large number of troops into a country that is full of different ideas on how the world should work. Our problem wasn't with the Iraqi regime that we removed from power (however terrible they may have been), but with the world of terrorism. Our money and resources should be going towards that rather than the war in Iraq.
-Ryan Pierce
I have mixed thoughts about the prospect of pulling our troops out of Iraq, and I believe that there are no good options at this point. I have to recall a quote that I remember Colin Powell saying when he told us "if you break it, you own it." Powell believed from the start that a US invasion was a bad call. Now we are responsible for our own mess. I think that when a government reaches the point of having no good options, the people--both home and abroad--are at that point experiencing a failed policy. This is largely the result of the leadership of inexperienced policy makers and a system of trial-and-error that is only making matters worse.
If someone tells you that it's not about money, it's about money. Likewise, if someone tells you it's not about oil, you better believe it's about oil! When last I checked, a barrel of oil was priced at $80.57. A worst-case senario predicts that a pullout from the Middle East would could result in oil skyrocketting to $300 a barrel, which would result in our gas prices reaching up to as high as $8 per gallon: an unimaginable figure. With this, as well as other significant reasons, pulling out or staying in at this point in the game is an exceedingly expensive, political, moral decision.
Gordon Lippincott
When talking about the Iraq war, someone always brings up the notion that the reasons for the war were unclear or that Bush deceived the public into entering Iraq in the first place. However, it’s just too easy to ask these questions four years later. I found it funny to watch the same democrats, who voted to go to war, condemn Bush and claim that they were fooled. They are only exploiting the situation for their own political benefit, drawing support from the under informed masses. Most of the time, when someone denounces the war in Iraq they can’t even provide an original answer to why it is wrong, rather they are just opposed to the idea of war as a whole. It’s just a continuation of the “hippie” trend. Democrats control the House and the Senate but their only solution to the war is to create a timeline to cut funding to Iraq, ultimately ending it. Given things didn’t turn out the way we planned and WMD’s weren’t found, our efforts can still be justified in ending a Hitler-like leader and in uncovering atrocities that were before unknown. How can our governing bodies show such disregard for an area of the world that is in desperate need of guidance? And now that we are there and have uncovered a hotbed of social and political unrest, how can we just back away? It would be like lifting up a carpet and finding dust swept under it, but neglecting to sweep it up. It’s just postponing future problems. The bottom line is that the United States needs to re-organize and look at the present instead of the past. An example of what Iraq can be is Yugoslavia today. Suffering from similar internal conflict, the U.S helped to put it on a stable track. What’s done is done, and now we need to move forward as a collective unit to sort out our problems in Iraq.
John Dalo
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/29/iran.parliament/index.html
I just found this article and it explains that the Iranian Parliament "voted to designate the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Army as terrorist organizations." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmandinejad announced that he "told the U.N. General Assembly that an agreement reached last month between his country and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over its disputed nuclear program has, in the Iranian view, settled the matter." I think the war in Iraq is turning into a much bigger problem than the government expected. I think the only option now is to pull troops out. It is turning into almost an identical situation as Vietnam. It is clear that the people in Iraq do not appreciate our presence and now they have even labeled us as terrorists. Our motives are no longer clear and more and more innocent people are dying everyday. It will be interesting to see what happens after the next election when a new president is elected and how he or she handles our current situation. I support the troops fighting bravely for our country and I pray for their families. After five long years of fighting, I think it's time we withdrawal our troops because we have to realize that you can't help someone that doesn't want your help. Whether or not we build up the stability in Iraq, who is to say it won't crumble when we leave? I think we need to leave the issue alone and let the dust settle. If there are still problems, we can rethink our position as this "world policeman" and try to start again. Without any clear motives or intentions, our being there is not a good idea.
-Katy Johnson
I found this article about Iraq online.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-09-20-voa70.cfm
The U.S. Senate on September 20, rejected 70-28, ending combat operations and setting a withdrawing from Iraq by June 2008. I chose to write about this because I am against troop withdraw and thought it was interesting to see how General Petraeus testimony has effected congress. Just this spring congress passed legislation, which was ultimately vetoed by President Bush, that would have required withdraw by May 2008. In this vote, war opponents could only gather 28 votes.
Withdrawing troops from Iraq would be a mistake. American troops in Iraq are not defeated. General Petraeus reported to congress last week that the surge had been a military success, though not a political success. Failure would have results around the world. Iraq is not in a bubble isolated from the world. All you have to do is look at the example of Vietnam to see what could happen. Withdrawing from Vietnam had negative consequences that are too often ignored. After the fall of South Vietnam, the governments of Laos and Cambodia also fell to communism. Throughout Southeast Asia millions of people lost their lives. The Soviet Union took advantage of American weakness and invaded Afghanistan and the Islamic Revolution in Iran also took advantage of American weakness. As bad as the consequences of Vietnam were, I think a withdraw from Iraq would have the potential to be even worse. A withdraw would embolden Iran, who is seeking to counter U.S. influence in the Middle East and to built nuclear weapons (they say they’re not.). It could cause sectarian violence unlike anything that we have yet seen in Iraq. There is also great fear that an American withdraw could create a power vacuum that would allow the violence in Iraq to erupt into a regional war throughout the Middle East.
An American withdraw would also have a negative impact on an international system that is so often anarchic. The U.S. invasion of Iraq gave meaning to the numerous UN resolutions against Saddam. The U.S. sent the signal to nations around the world that they must follow the rules or be held accountable. With a U.S. withdraw from Iraq, states such as North Korea, or Iran could feel that they can defy the United Nations over their nuclear programs because there is no one to enforce resolutions.
Britt Chalmers
To me the Iraq War has some relevants; I understand that after 9/11 the Govt had to send a point to Americans and the rest of the world that attacks on our soil wont go unpunished. I support our Govt's fast reaction and also all the men and women that have and are still giving their lives for us. To me I don't understand why our Gov't felt it necessary to say were going into Iraq in search of weapons of mass distruction. When its all about the oil and only the oil as to why were over there now. Bush says once things are under control we will gradually pull out, this is a lie if I ever heard one. All you have to do is read the history books after you destroy a nations infrastructure its takes an exceptional amount of time and money to build them back up so that they can govern themselves once again. To me my feelings about the Iraq war are that were there now, lets get the job done and then come home ASAP.
Gregory Alen Ward Jr.
I would first like to say that I support our troops for fighting to defend our country and show great nationalism. But I do feel as if a lot of what is going on with the war is behind closed doors and not allowing us citizens to know where we stand. How do you really know when we have achieved what we went in for? I do believe we had to have fought back in order to let nations know we won't go down easily and we are powerful country, but the questions that remains unanswered is have we stayed there too long?
Jessica Stecker
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=237751
I found this article on another blog site, which actually had some good points to make. But this article discusses Congress' recent decision to increase the federal debt limit to to well over 9 trillion dollars, will also giving the Bush administration an additional 9 billion dollars to fund the war.
Now that I have summarized the article, allow me to respond...
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
I thought Clinton, Obama, and Edwards were Anti-War right? At least thats what people keep telling me. Why didn't they vote against this? They are too busy campaigning to vote on a matter that is costing Americans trillions of dollars. Obama has missed something like 25 percent of his votes. Isn't it his job to vote?
You know, at least the republicans have stood by the war since the beginning. At least they are committed to something. But look at the "Democratic Congress". They can stop this war at anytime, just cut the money, simple. Yet for someone reason they do not. What good has the democratic congress done yet?
-Tanner Herpst
The Democrats are not cutting funding for the troops because they know that the consequence would be disaster, both for Iraq and for their political future. Obviously, we all want the war to end as soon as possible. However, withdrawing troops too soon would plunge the Middle East into chaos and ruin everything that our troops have accomplished in the last four years. Besides, cutting funding for the troops would not mean immediate withdrawal. The troops would keep fighting for a while; they would just have less equipment. Part of the current funding bill includes money for new mine-resistant vehicle that are proven to save lives. America would never forgive Democrats for denying the troops the money they need.
Josh Shannon
In regards to the war, I feel kind of bad about the whole thing because, I'll admit, I was gung-ho for war way back in 2003 (wow... has it really been that long?) and now, I regret backing the war. At the time we had been lied to and told that there were WMD's and just the thought of Iraq having such weapons that could be used against us made me really want to go. However, in the 4 years since then, we've caught Saddam, discovered there wasn't any WMD's (at least none that we've found), and become mired in a conflict that is becoming extremely costly not only monetary wise but in human lives. I have a good friend who's boyfriend just returned from Iraq safely and I can honestly say that I've never seen anyone worry about the well being of someone as she did. If thats just how a girlfriend is feeling, imagine how parents and families are feeling of the boys over there. That, coupled with what seems like a situation that is becoming increasingly difficult to pull out of, the Iraq war is way more than we all bargained for. And even more troubling, the rumblings that the Bush administration wants to go into Iran will only spell more trouble.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21064094/site/newsweek/page/0/
I just read this article about the whole Blackwater controversy. This gives yet more proof to the idea that perhaps in our own way, we Americans coming into Iraq are acting more like terrorists ourselves rather than the liberators we so boldy call ourselves to other foreign nations. This is just one case in which people were caught in the act of doing something wrong. Think of all the possible things that could be happening without the real wrong-doers being caught. On the news all you hear about is how many American soldiers died during combat, but they rarely ever mention the amount of innocent Iraqi civilians caught in the crossfire of this war.
-John Georges
Although there are “bad things” going on there, I think it is quite extreme to say we are acting as terrorists. No country or anything is perfect and I think we are too quick to criticize situations that we don’t understand.
I was one of the many to completely support the war a few years ago, although I was worried about what was going to come of it. As far as what I feel now, I think there needs to be some kind of a change. I do not believe we should just pull out because I think everything we have established will just crumble. Also I think there needs to be a plan for withdrawal in the next few years.
-Kimberly Renner
I feel that the war in iraq has been the biggest waste of money this country has spent ever. George Bush has not done at all a good job of handling this situation. All the war has done is just make the countries in the middle east and around the world hate us and think that we(United State) are bullies. This is not the image that i think that many of the people in this country want to have and presidents before bush i would imagine are very disappointed in his handle of this. I hope that we as a nation clean up this mess and get our troops and clean up the image of the U.S
Andrew Unthank
I would like to a respond to an above post on the idea of the US troops acting like "terriosts". It is absolutely insane to compare America's interaction in the Iraq war with those of terriosts. Yes the media does an excellent example of showing the tradegies of war, which with any war are horrific. But it is important to remember that the media is a bussiness. It will only show and deminstrate what it knows will sell the most papers. Issue saying that operations are going as planned and without trouble do not sell. Flaunting tragedies and mistakes does sell papers. The media also has a bias whether they try to be honest or not.
If you talk to soldiers how have returned from Iraq they will say that in places the soldiers have done many great things.
~Kevin Wright
So here we go again with the topic that continues to kill many innocent people. I believe that there is no need for troops to be in Iraq because they should have the sovereignty to make their own religious decisions and the United States should not intervene. The reasons given to us about invading Iraq are just a cover-up for the selfish reasons our greedy president trespassed this country. The US government is and has only looked out for their best interest. They don’t want to help this country rebuild a government, and sustain itself; the US government went in for oil, revenge, and power. These reasons are not reasons to go to war and have our loyal soldiers lose their lives for, therefore it is a pointless war and it needs to end now.
ddepina@udel.edu
I feel that the war in Iraq began as a bad idea, but it was really something that had to be done. Iraq and Sadam never directly attacked the US, but they always posed a threat to us. My views in politics are completely Liberal, but I'm not to say I don't support the President in the time of war. I feel that the US really stepped up and did was many countries wanted to do, but they just didn't have the resources to do so. Getting Sadam out of power was the right thing to do even if it seems as an act of breaking sovereignty. He may not have had WMDs but I'm sure he'd be the first one to use them if he did.
-Eric Boruta
I agree in some aspects that the war in Iraq was a good idea. But I also think that going to war in Iraq was completely idealistic. Looking back, it is almost like a movie the way certain war mongers in the Bush administration promoted going to war. I was convinced. Now, I realize yes war was inevitable, and yes war on Iraq probably did benefit America. Yet now it's time to get real. A plan to get out of Iraq needs to be set in motion.
---Kris-Ann Panzella
i believe that the overthrowing of iraq could be considered an inevitability but i dont see why the united states couldnt have waited for the UN to back the entire issue. obviously, iraq, saddam hussein himself, and the entire idea of them being capable of nuclear warfare was a frightening idea but there is really no reason that after 15-20 years of UN weapons inspectors going into iraq, we couldnt have waited a little more time before launching an invasion to disarm them. the fact that we did proceed with the disarmament shows the rest of the world that we are semi-incapable of waiting and having the world behind us before declaring war on a country that will obviously have massive political repercussions. on the global scale, it is a little difficult to tell which might have been worse: to let iraq continue to operate under their current regime or to have the majority of the world viewing us as pushy, flaunting our power to make countries to conform to our way of thinking. essentially the invasion of iraq has many pros and cons right now and we wont be able to see which weighs more on the global socio-political stage until we are no longer a real presence in iraq and we can see the results of our coup.
-mack shane
Lately there has been a great deal of discussion about a pull out in Iraq. I believe that removing troops in Iraq would be a bad decision. In fact, I believe that there should have been talk of an increase many years ago so that control of the country could be attained. By removing the forces the chances for control only grow more slim. Most of the debate is about the decision in the first place. The decision, whether right or wrong was made, and now its about how best to deal with the decision which left us in a draining war in Iraq.
-Matt Atkinson
I just read this article in the nytimes concerning the budget for the war in Iraq for 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27military.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
In my opinion the war in Iraq has gone on for far too long, and the reasons we have for being there are becoming more and more unbelieveable than before. I feel that we are just there because the President does not have any other ideas of what to do about Iraq and Afghanistan other than to keep sending more troops, and spending more money. The estimates for the budget in 2008 are ridiculous in this article. President Bush's proposal for the war for 2008 started at $42 billion dollars and ended up at $190 billion dollars. Also at the moment they have 20 combat brigades over in Iraq each about 3500-4500 soldiers. They say that this number will decrease, but who is really to say what will happen. As they say in the article, we've heard the same tune before.
-Amanda McDonnell
I am in agreement with the people who have said that the war in Iraq was a justified move after 9/11, but has gone on too long. I think that if it had been a quick fix to a major terrorist problem, we would be justified for leaving troops there as long as we have. However, since I do not believe enough advances have been made, and our loss of troops and the money that has been spent is equivalent to the gain we have made (more like NOT made), I do not see how we are justified in keeping troops fighting, risking their lives, and sucking money from the government. Not to mention, I believe Bush's plan for extracting our absurd number of troops stationed in Iraq is just a slow fix to an immediate problem. He is trying to play both sides of the field, and satisfy those who support the war with those who do not, simultaneously,which just cannot happen.
-Anna Post
Where oh where to begin? Well let's begin with the future, in a recent democratic debate the candidates were asked "Within the length of your first term would you be able to get America out of Iraq?" The unanimous answer from the top three candidates was no. That does not give a bright future to those of us who want out of the war, and who also happen to be democratic (or for anyone who wants out of the war as republican frontrunners would not leave in their first term either.) So let's look at Iraq today. Where is it headed? It would seem as if the surge was working, but why then not add more troops? If something works why not go all out with it, instead of isolating it to one spot of the country. This is odd overall that Bush congratulates himself and others on the surge working, and then says that he is taking troops out (presumably what most Americans want,) but the exact amount he would take out was the amount from the surge. So it would almost feel as if the last several months were a big loop. We put the troops in, to take them back out. I think this whole thing is a big mess that can't be answered in bits so short as campaign slogans.
-Christopher Fromme
Ok, I'm going to ask it. Is this a Religious War? For example, Blackwater, the "guns for hire", is run by a Christian family that donates money and marries into the conservative side of our gov. President Bush is a Christian and uses the word "evil" when talking about the enemy and "evil" is a religious concept. Jihad means "striving in the way of God" and there is a whole lot of that going on, as we all know. So, although there is a lot that plays into our current situation, are we secretly in a religious war?
Stephane Stewart
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7023271.stm
I don't mean to change subjects without commenting, but I don't have much to say on the previous post. I know this doesn't directly have to do with the Iraq war, but I think it's closely related enough..
While it is only the third attack since June, and that's definitely a good thing that there haven't been many, I think maybe this is something to worry about. When I read the former director of the CIA's book (George Tenet) about everything dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan, he explained a lot about the mentality of the Taliban, insurgents, and so on. I don't know if people realize how big of an issue it is, but it's definitely something to consider. A lot of people start to forget things if they aren't happening that often, but what they don't realize is how the goal of terrorism doesn't just disappear. With the reemergence of more attacks in Afghanistan now, there should definitely be a worry of more activity from the Taliban, who claimed responsibility for the attack. We haven't really had to worry about them too much recently, but Tenet says that in the intelligence community it is a well-known fact that there are always more planned attacks on our soil, and other countries as well. Just thought I'd comment on the fact that something as small as the third attack in five months may not seem like much, but it may end out turning into more.
I feel that we, the US, is doing way too much in the middle east. We have been trying to control other countries in the middle east for many years. We say that it is to help them but we all realize that our own interests are our motives. I disagree with our policy in Iraq; i feel like the US should stay out of other countries' business, even if we feel we can help them. We have too many worries of our own that are overlooked that we should take care of first. Poverty, homelessness, and crime, among others, are issues we need to take care of at home.
Corey Wall
Post a Comment