Lieberman offers clear assessment on Iraq

[myboynoah]

Do people really understand what is at stake here?

One Choice in Iraq

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Do people really understand what is at stake here?

One Choice in Iraq

Lieberman is a good man and spot on. Those who want to run away like cowards have conveniently decided to ignore the civilians who are being murdered by the terrorists. Withdrawing is not the answer in Vietnam and it is not the answer now. It's time to turn up the military force a few notches and fight this as it needs to be.

[MikeWaters]

If staying in Iraq means that we have to abandon an all-volunteer military, will you support staying?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Do people really understand what is at stake here?

One Choice in Iraq

I am so tired of this "one choice" rhetoric. It simply isn't true. We have many choices, it is just that none of them are remotely good.

Things are awful in Iraq (and let us not forget the reasons why and hold those responsible for the current situtation). But is our presence there helping? Hard to see how. We supported Al-Sadr, who is now controlling enormous parts of the country and is going to be nearly impossible to remove. We dismantled the military upon arrival, leaving the country without any enforcement officers in the streets. We are currently protecting the Shiites, the group that most wants us destroyed. We are incredibly unpopular in the region and among the people in Iraq. They want us to leave.

So, are we to come to the conclusion that we have to stay? Hardly. There are persuasive arguments on both sides of the issue, contrary to the "clear cut" language of Lieberman and others.

What happens if we do stay? We continue to protect the Shiites to our own detriment and to the region's detriment. Our troops continue to be killed in the process. The Iraqi public continues to grow more enraged with the American occupation of Iraq. The conflict between Sunnis and Shiites continues to slowly escalate towards a full-blown civil war, leaving millions dead and huge instability in the region as Iran and Saudi Arabia grow increasingly involved. We continue to operate without any actual plan (according to our own generals). Eventually we have to leave anyways, but not until we have suffered many more casualties unnecessarily.

If we leave? Civil war, millions dead, huge instability in the region.

Both staying and leaving result in the same problem, absent a dramatic shift in our policy (and even that may not be sufficient).

What I find so amusing in all of this (in a tragic sort of way) is that those who claim we have to stay make the claim that this is one of the most critical moments in our history. They say this is vital to the very survival of our nation. They say our very freedom is at stake. And their solution? 10,000 more troops! WOW! 10,000! Victory is here!!!

The use of a mere 10,000 troops signals to me that they don't actually believe what they are saying. If our very freedom hinged on this decision, why not send in the full force and power of the US military? Isn't that what it is for? Send in 350,000 troops. Start a draft. Demand sacrifice from all levels of the American population.

[MikeWaters]

The reason that the surge is so pitiful is that our military is in such a pitiful state.

It is being stretched to the breaking point.

Heaven forbid another country do something that actually threatened our national interests or our allies'.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The reason that the surge is so pitiful is that our military is in such a pitiful state.

It is being stretched to the breaking point.

Heaven forbid another country do something that actually threatened our national interests or our allies'.

I agree. Which is why you would have to have a draft if a troop surge was to do anything (and even then it could be a huge failure). Bush has put us into quite the predicament here.

I just find it odd that people claim this moment will define our future, and then they say "let's solve it with 10,000 troops." If you believe it will define our future, you had better come with something stronger than that.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Things are awful in Iraq (and let us not forget the reasons why and hold those responsible for the current situtation).

It's a sad day when I read this, and I can't tell if he's talking about Bush, or talking about the terrorists.

Then again, to a liberal I suppose those are one and the same.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's a sad day when I read this, and I can't tell if he's talking about Bush, or talking about the terrorists.

Then again, to a liberal I suppose those are one and the same.

The terrorists are responsible for attacking us, and they should be held responsible.

Our president is responsible for the decision to invade Iraq (which has little to nothing to do with the terrorists, and in fact has empowered them in many ways), for the poor state of our military, for our poor planning and execution of the occupation of Iraq, and for awful communication to world leaders and to the American public, and he should be held responsible for those actions (or lack of actions).

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If staying in Iraq means that we have to abandon an all-volunteer military, will you support staying?

Yes, I will.

It's time for the politicians to step aside and allow the military to run the war.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Yes, I will.

It's time for the politicians to step aside and allow the military to run the war.

The military won't support a draft. So if you say that a draft may be necessary you would be injecting politics (or what I call 'reality') into the process, that the military hierarchy would not support.