Iraq Series - Saving Private Ryan > FreedomsWatch

Monday, February 25, 2008

Iraq Series - Saving Private Ryan
By Megan Ortagus :: 28 Comments :: Email to a friend

Reporting from a U.S. military base in Kuwait

Private Ryan is a name most Americans associate with Steven Spielberg’s Academy Award-winning picture about a fictional paratrooper from the 101st Airborne Division; his three brothers are tragically killed in WW II and General George C. Marshall orders a grieving mother’s last son to be returned home from France.

I had the privilege of meeting an actual Private Ryan today in Kuwait. Private Tim Ryan and I met over a distinctly American meal – McDonalds – while prepping for transport into the red zone of Iraq. Private Ryan will deploy to a kinetic area of operation where he will lead convoys through the rugged terrain, dealing with deadly I.E.D.s on the way, and working with the Iraqi Security Forces to protect the local population.

As we snacked on chocolate milkshakes and fries, the clarity of his conviction struck me. “I’m living my dream,” he gushed, “this is what I was born to do.”

I can confirm that life in Kuwait might not typically be described as a “dream” by most American standards. But Private Ryan explained that his dream, not unlike many of the other soldiers I spoke with today, stemmed from a deep desire held since boyhood to serve his country in a combat zone – and make his grandfather proud.

Private Ryan told me of his family life in Southern California, proudly sharing memories of his highly decorated grandfather (two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart) who served as an Army medic in World War II. And he explained how his friends seemed to no longer understand him.

His most telling anecdote concerned his leave time in Orange County, California. While en route home - in uniform - he stopped in Maine and Dallas, where he was met with applause and hugs from grateful strangers who thanked him for his service. But the reception in his affluent California neighborhood was quite different. Instead of warm, welcoming greetings, he was met with ambivalence and cautious stares.

I asked Private Ryan why the country seemed so harshly divided over the war. “Well, I think the American people are misinformed when they say they support the troops but not our war.” I asked him to define the U.S. mission in Iraq. “For me, it’s providing peace; if we leave, these gangster terrorists will destroy these people.”

I’d say Private Ryan has a better grasp of what is at stake in Iraq than all the politicians and pundits in Washington. While policymakers talk of political reconciliation, timelines, mission changes, and war funding, Private Ryan gets to real issue and defines in stark terms the dire consequences of a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Early withdrawal would lead to utter chaos and a military/strategic defeat for the United States.

Private Ryan urged me to share one final thought: he asks for us all to have faith in our military leadership and in the mission. He reminded me that he volunteered for this duty and fighting for American and Iraqis freedom was his life’s highest honor.

“Megan, we’re not just kicking up a bunch of sand over here.”

Well said, Private Ryan.

Megan Ortagus is the Freedom's Watch Iraq Project Director, and will be posting periodically from Iraq throughout the week. Please check back often for further updates from her trip.

Comments

By keeeemosabe @ Monday, February 25, 2008 11:24 AM

>>>>>>>>“For me, it’s providing peace; if we leave, these gangster terrorists will destroy these people.”<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>Early withdrawal would lead to utter chaos and a military/strategic defeat for the United States.<<<<<<<
And none of this would be necessary or even had come to pass, except for a blunder by W to begin this extra bonus porkbarrel Iraq war, before Afghanistan was put to rest. Such extreme arrogance to believe that 2 wars halfwar across the world could be successful after the debacle in VietNam and seeing how the world's most powerful army in the 80's, the Soviets , on their southern doorstep, could defeat the mujahadeen. So is W's Iraq decision pure arrogance or utter stupidity? Does it matter?

By lysander @ Monday, February 25, 2008 4:04 PM

I was not keying on the error you made. That's why I said you made it "inadvertently." But what does the fact that the Soviets lost there mean? The equivalent would be to say, we can't go halfway around the world and fight Germany because France, who is on their southwestern doorstep, already lost to them. That would be laughable. France lost because they had a weaker army and a WWI-era strategy, among other reasons. America, Britain, Canada, et al, approached Germany differently and defeated her.

The main point is not whether Bush was right or wrong. Again, for the sake of argument, let me say that he was wrong. The question still remains, what now? Is it best to precipitously withdraw our combat forces, and blame the aftermath on Bush? Or is it in our best interest to stay until Iraq is a stable and liberal democracy in the Mid East, a friend of the US, at peace with its neighbors, and an ally against an the illiberal ideologies of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezballah, and others?

And I'm sorry to say I have not seen Charlie Wilson's War. Have you seen Ratatouille? It's very good.

By keeeemosabe @ Monday, February 25, 2008 7:39 PM

>>>>Or is it in our best interest to stay until Iraq is a stable and liberal democracy in the Mid East, a friend of the US, at peace with its neighbors, and an ally against an the illiberal ideologies of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezballah, and others?<<<<<
It's so easy to say this could happen. Talk is cheap. Bush and all the conservatives talk as though they can will it and that their "happy talk" rules. If it were so, Iraq would have been in the bag years ago. If success could/should have been expected then it is nigh unto treason the way the administration has caused the military to nearly founder and fail. If this is an existential struggle, why are they not using the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force? Why did they make all the promises of victory and having the war paid for by Iraq's oil revenues? And so drag the US though this morass? If anyone caused the military to nearly fail and moral to drop...it is not the left but the current White House whose answer to foreign policy is war first...not the last resort that it should be. SHAME!!! The answer now is to just leave our worn-out military equipment in Iraq to arm the gov’t forces and let them do their job. They know where al Qaeda enemy is, and they have had years more training than our grunts get. It has not ended yet because Bush has not wanted it to end. He has said this military spending actually strengthens our economy. Sounds like a pork barrel project to me.

By bevperl @ Tuesday, February 26, 2008 3:04 AM

Well, thanks to "W" and Soldiers like Private Ryan, who understand "Death To America," blogging in the comfort of your home is still possible. Appreciate your blessings, provided for you courtesy of the brave men and women of the United States Military. Your reality could be finding 70 less heads on the streets in your neighborhood! This is an enemy who is patient and counting on our very own citizens to further their cause. Understand this: Safe since 9/11!

By keeeemosabe @ Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:09 AM

bevperl sez: >>>>>Your reality could be finding 70 less heads on the streets in your neighborhood! This is an enemy who is patient and counting on our very own citizens to further their cause. Understand this: Safe since 9/11! <<<<<<<
Remeber this: 9/11 happened on W's "watch" and 70 less heads are happening as a result of W's big adventure in Iraq. Saddam would have been proud to cause as many innocent deaths as W's adventure has caused.

By keeeemosabe @ Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:31 AM

Aggi66 sez: >>>W listen to his miltary leaders and went to Iraq whcih drew the enemy out of the mountianous regions into the open.<<<

Now there's a load. W cherry picks his advice like he cherry picked evidence of Iraq's nuclear capability, like he cherry picks which parts of which law to ignore and which portions of any law to enforce or ignore. I'll watch you howl when if Obama learns form these techniques of unitary executive power. Now, I apologize (((as already shown at the bottom of thread))) for the typo...should have said, ".....the Soviets , on their southern doorstep, could (NOT) defeat the mujahadeen (either.)" ( Soviets could not defeat them because mujahadeen got their hands on Stinger missiles channeled to Afghanistan via "Charlie Wilson's War"
So..."drawing them out of the mountains"...How's THAT workin' for ya? That's how W missed Osama binLaden, by keeping our own forces way from ObL, and "contracting" Afghan warlords to do the job, instead.
Instead of drawing enemy into the open, W opened up a 2nd front, halfway across the world, putting the whole mission at risk. DENY THAT IF YOU CAN. Also remember that all the surge was supposed to do was to give Iraqi lawmakers enough time to set up a gov’t. All they seem to do is fight over oil revenues. But the real story is W’s assumption that Iraqi leaders want what we want. Have you ever considered they themselves might be trying to bleed us dry as part of the Islamic resistance toward the West? Think about that.

By keeeemosabe @ Tuesday, February 26, 2008 2:18 PM

nder sez: >>>>>>>>And if they are bleeding us dry, why have they stopped attacking us? Why have American casualties reached their lowest point since the war began?<<<<<<<
One little head fake does not a victory make. Just like W baits us along with little bouts of progress, so too do Iraqi politicians, (with guidance from Iran) giving us little glimmers of hope which just string us along and keep us dancing to their tune. Our military’s destiny right now, like it or not...recognize it or not... has been left in THEIR (Iraqi politicians’) hands, fully dependent on their progress. How does that grab ya? Do you really think our military’s destiny is their priority? I’d doubt it somehow.
You say the quality of Iraqi recruits is far below ours at Parris Island. Perhaps, but they are from the same pool that seems to have nearly fought our trained professional military to a draw for about 5 years now. Somehow those “dead-enders” have managed to embarrass the world's premier military establishment.

By keeeemosabe @ Tuesday, February 26, 2008 2:44 PM

W's pork barrel war: you could look it up by gooling a portion of this quote from 2.18.8
Bush Dismisses Iraq Recession: The War Has ‘Nothing To Do With The Economy’
This morning on NBC’s Today Show, President Bush denied that the there’s any link between the faltering U.S. economy and $10 billion a month being spent on the Iraq war. In fact, according to Bush, the war is actually helping the economy:

CURRY: You don’t agree with that? It has nothing do with the economy, the war — spending on the war?

BUSH: I don’t think so. I think actually the spending in the war might help with jobs…because we’re buying equipment, and people are working. I think this economy is down because we built too many houses and the economy’s adjusting.

By bevperl @ Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:12 PM

keeeemosabe: 9/11 may have happened in Bush's first year but you can't be so shallow to believe that all the preparation took place during those 10 months. All the assimilation into our society by the terrorists, all the preparation and flying lessons, took place on Clinton's watch. Clinton and his reckless bunch looked the other way for 8 years while these terrorists attacked us abroad. Then they send their master thief Sandy Berger into the National Archives to "STEAL" all the proof of the recklessness of the Clinton Administration. Regardless of what you "imagine", Death To America is real and thank God Bush doesn't care what shallow people like you think. He has not governed by popular opinion, he listens to our Generals and he doesn't ignore real threats to the safety of Americans.
A more approriate name for you is keemoSHALLOW.

By keeeemosabe @ Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:37 PM

Responses to Lysander 3.42p
If all is so wonderful, our job should be done. But the Repub position will forever be: “Heads I win, tails you lose. If it's going good we must never leave, if it's going bad we must never leave. I guess the answer is to start a few more wars to keep y'all happy and to keep Repubs in office and keep the American public afraid of their own shadows like a bunch of cowards. What a "proud" legacy! NOT!
......So you admit that the result of W's adventure is to empower Iran. Thank you! I've been saying that for years now. To bad that was not realized before the fact, and is instead used to keep us in Iraq forever to enrich the military contractors and to have our foot in the door to gain Iraqi oil trade. That's the true morality of it. regardless of all the phony high minded political talking points. What is best for America’s interests? Hold presidents responsible for stupid idiotic military moves to avoid the same story again. We Americans get sucked in and manipulated far too easily into extra bonus pork barrel wars. And about the words pork barrel. That is an accurate description that I used. You are confusing it with the word "earmarks" I believe.

By keeeemosabe @ Tuesday, February 26, 2008 6:00 PM

Response to bevperl @ Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:12 PM Clinton and his reckless bunch looked the other way for 8 years while these terrorists attacked us abroad. <<<<<<<<<
Go ahead and keep up your blame Clinton for everything fetish. If Clinton did wrong eight years ahead of 9/11, they tried hard to get Bushy’s attention regarding the threat and was ignored by the Bushies until 9/11. Why? because he could not bring himself to take any advice from Clinton. After all, her had run as the Un-Clinton So every bit of blame you put upon Clinton can be put at W's feet too. At least Clinton did not get us into an extra bonus Iraq war that would put the whole War on terror mission in jeopardy. And he did not trap the next president to years of war like W would love to do. And he did not spoil for war so much that it became his first resort instead of the last resort. As for Shallow, I don't think that putting my conscience in a jar to be marinated by warmongers' talking points to end up as mindless sheeple is as patriotic as you seem to think.

By keeeemosabe @ Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:03 AM

Response top Lysander 7:27 pm Point by point; >>>why have the Democrats not stopped funding the war, especially since they ran on an anti-war platform in '06? <<< >>>They don't have enough votes. They are basically even until you consider they must have super majorities votes to overcome vetoes. And the Repubs make it their business to block all they can. Even if they were successful< W would just shuffle monies from eslewhere and do what he wants anyway, using signing statements to make laws from Congress irrelevant. Who needs check and balances anyway? (Obama or Hillary will LOVE this NEW feature of the presidency!!!!) <<< >>>Are they cowards? <<< >>> They are sensitive to being demonized by use of demagoguery as is the Republican way of doing things. And they don't have enough votes yet to effect power changes. That will change soon. <<< >>> Also, why call it a pork barrel war? Besides the fact that the defense industry always benefits from wars, do you honestly believe that Bush started the war to give kickbacks to cronies at Boeing and Lockheed? <<< 1. W sees it as a public works project that benefits our economy. 2. From what I see they really want to try their hand at a long term experiment to evaluate privatization of large portions of the military. Relatives of the Bush family have a vested interest, i.e. ownership of one such company. This fits hand in glove with their world view of privatization...that all things have a purpose and that purpose is profit within a global capitalist system that suits our most moneyed capitalist system perfectly and the rest of the world should just be willing to aspire to that most perfect model ---the good ol’ USA, of course. ( Why can’t ever-buddy be jus’ like us, Ya know?<<< >>> And that he continues it so those companies can continue to reap profits? <<< >>> See above <<< >>> And are you saying that this was to get our foot in the Iraqi oil trade? Eventually. Of course to be too overt and obvious in colonizing the parts of Iraq we covet would forever turn the world against our designs and everything the US proposes into the future would then be rightly greeted with enormous suspicion as a form of power grab instead of the "humanitarian", talking point, reasons for going to war...LOL! As W says, "We wage this (extra, bonus, preemptive, Iraq) war for peace" (I paraphrase) George Orwell would blush. Yup! You can fool some of the people most of the time. Please remember. This is not my view of America. But it is the view of America I see through W’s eyes. The world is his to plunder...just as he was appointed to the presidency and then ruled as though voted in by a huge mandate. You could see my point so much clearer if the shoe was on the other foot and Clinton has done exactly as W has done. I dare say you would hate him, with far more reason than you hated him when he took office.

By keeeemosabe @ Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:42 AM

OSoccer >>>>>al Qaeda was initially tough to defeat because of political opposition by the Defeat-o-crats at home siding with al Qaeda in the media war<<<
Lush Rimbaugh has totally marinated your brain...or has it the echo chamber you listen to made you crazy?
So al Qaeda is powered by friendly mental vibes of Democrats. Right You are completedly delusional. Get profesional helo before the men in white coats come to get you. You have lost your mind....if you ever had one.

By keeeemosabe @ Wednesday, February 27, 2008 3:32 PM

Reply to bevperl 2.27, 2:20 PM
<<<I suggest you learn from W's success >>>>
Here are W's war "accomplishments as I see them. 1. He has jeopardized the success of the "war on Terror" by diverting force from Afghanistan. 2. He has placed the destiny of the U.S. military so that its fate mightily depends on Iraqi legislators to make correct and timely and fateful decisions that we would favor.....Iraqis...who may well wish the slow destruction of the U.S. military. Certainly some, if not most of these Iraqi officials consider themselves more Islamic resistance than U.S. allies. Funny how conservatives get so worked up about UN commanders having any say over our troops in U.N. missions, but hand the fate and destiny of our military to depend so heavily on Iraqis that may well consider our troops as invaders. And some call this wise....some call this success.

By lysander @ Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:24 PM

Keemo: Congress does not need votes to defund the war. They just need to not vote to fund it. Bush can't veto a bill that is not passed, so no supermajority is needed. It is true that the Pentagon, not Bush, can divert money allocated to DOD for other projects to Iraq, but that literally would only buy them weeks. It is a short term fix if there is a gap in funding, not a long term fix making congress irrelevant. Congress, even under Democrat control, has voted to fund this war. Why? Funding is the check and balance to the executive power. Bush can do nothing without Congress authorizing the money.

And they're sensitive, but they are not cowards? Bush's approval rating is 32%, the Democrats are leading in the presidential polls vs McCain, and almost all signs point to the White House being controlled by a Democrat in 2009, and yet they continue to bash Bush while simultaneously funding the war. I honestly think it is because the costs of leaving are higher than the costs of staying, and they know that. If it were as simple as you see it, the Democrats would have no excuse but to immediately stop funding the war.

With respect to Bush's public works project, why would Bush not just spend billions on building bridges and highways, or drilling for oil and buying pharmaceuticals? There are plenty of ways of politicians enriching their cronies - and let's be honest, that's as old a habit as the profession is itself - besides war. Why not lobby to drill in ANWR or the Gulf Coast and give those contracts to Halliburton? And what part of the military has been privatized? KBR, which supplied food and logistics in Bosnia and Kosovo? Or Blackwater, that guards our officials from the Department of State? (And I ask this question honestly, what member of the Bush family owns such a company?)

Would it be a good thing if the Arab world in general, and Iraq in particular, were to open themselves up to free markets?

Contrary to what I'm writing here, I am not a huge fan of Bush. I'm happy with some of what he does, but he often leaves me speechless. But I refuse to believe that Bush values the kickbacks he gives to his buddies as being more valuable that 4000 dead American lives. You can say those lives were spent on a misadventure, or out of Bush's naivete, but I think it is very wrong to say Bush's motives are as sinister as you seem to think they are.

Do you have any evidence that our designs are to take control of the Iraqi oil trade? Any evidence at all? By your narrative, we are bold enough to invade a country, destabilize it, watch as 4000 of our own and countless Iraqis are killed, hundreds of thousands flee, see our economy struggle along with $100 barrels of oil, and watch the world opinion of us drop, but are afraid of the ramifications, or the "suspicions" if we were to seize our oil. That seems an absolutely implausible narrative, and I'm not sure even you believe that.

I've read all of Orwell, and I'm not sure he'd blush. He'd probably be amazed that Bush cannot communicate at all.

The shoe was on the other foot. Remember Clinton's war in Bosnia? Bosnia never attacked us and was no threat to the national security of the US. Clinton did not go to the UN. Against the wishes of our allies in Europe, Clinton bombed a sovereign country and killed thousands of its citizens, and we are now left with the legacy of nationbuilding. But I supported the war then, and I support the war now.

By lysander @ Tuesday, February 26, 2008 1:55 PM

Keemo: Talk IS cheap. The work of creating a stable, lasting Iraq is what is difficult. You are exactly correct. The question is not whether it is easy. The question, again, is what is best at this point. To remain and do the hard work of liberalizing Iraq, or to withdraw and then hope the chaos doesn't cause us duress and unwelcome inconvenience, not to mention an emboldened enemy. The administration - and yes, Bush is ultimately responsible - did an awful job in Iraq in from 2003-2004. They have reassessed and are now approaching the mission with new leadership and new strategy, and the results are undeniable. The surge is working - the government IS reconciling its differences - and even the harshest critics are being forced to admit that (see the latest writings of Cordesman at CSIS). Your answer - arming the Iraqi army and leaving them to do their job - is a recipe for disaster. The Iraqi Army (IA) is not strong enough to stand without American support. Period. Saying they are will not make them so. Remember, talk is cheap. They know where AQI is, or more appropriately, was - since AQI no longer has a single stronghold in the country, whereas they used to control several of Iraq's 18 provinces. But that is not the only threat to Iraq. There are other forces that battle for power, and must be restrained until they are abandoned. And to say the IA have had years more training that our grunts get is misleading at best. They do not have the same quality or quantity of training that our grunts get, and anyone who has ever worked with the IA can tell you that the raw material of the recruits is different in Baghdad than it is in Parris Island. If the only reason the war continues is Bush, why has Congress not defunded it? Why have they not even come close? I'm not sure when he ever said military spending strengthens the economy, but I'm beginning to wonder if you know the definition of "pork."

And the Iraqis are fighting over oil revenue? Not true. On Feb 13th the Iraqi Congress passed a $48 billion national budget which allocated the oil revenues to the provinces, including Kurdistan. And if they are bleeding us dry, why have they stopped attacking us? Why have American casualties reached their lowest point since the war began?

By bevperl @ Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:12 PM

By keeeemosabe @ Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:33 AM

Response:bevperl February 27, 2008 12:24 AM
I suggest you learn from W’s mistakes. Choose wars to support more wisely. Choose those that don’t put the whole mission in jeopardy, instead of extra bonus optional pork barrel wars. You don’t see you “Demon-crats bolting the Afghan war do you?????? Incorporate that into your world view before you post again...so you don’t look so foolish when you post.

By lysander @ Tuesday, February 26, 2008 7:27 PM

Keemo: Our job is not done, although I wish it was, and I doubt it will be done soon. But that doesn't make me happy. Isn't your position also "heads I win, tails you lose"? i.e. the war was going bad, pull out; now things are going well, pull out. The fact that I am not a Republican notwithstanding, it doesn't help to label this as a "Repub" position or to say we, those who want to succeed in Iraq, are pro-war or that we want more wars to scare Americans.

And I have not admitted that "W's adventure" has empowered Iran, although it certain ways it has. The question you have to ask is, what is more harmful for Iran: a democratic liberal neighbor, or a chaotic vacuum. The answer is certainly the former as the latter is what they are tying to create. They can then truly become a regional hegemon. There is a reason they are fighting a proxy war in Iraq: because free and prosperous Shia Muslims on their border could deal a death blow to an already unstable theocracy.

You are correct about the pork barrel vs earmark debate; an honest mistake on my part. But the question remains, why have the Democrats not stopped funding the war, especially since they ran on an anti-war platform in '06? Are they cowards? Also, why call it a pork barrel war? Besides the fact that the defense industry always benefits from wars, do you honestly believe that Bush started the war to give kickbacks to cronies at Boeing and Lockheed? And that he continues it so those companies can continue to reap profits? And are you saying that this was was to get our foot in the Iraqi oil trade? Then why did we turn control of the oil over to the Iraqis to be managed under transparent auspices. The profits from their oil production, which make up 85% of the Iraqi national revenues, are being spent by an Iraqi elected government and spread out to all of Iraq's 18 provinces. This argument, the no blood for oil argument, would have some weight if we still controlled the oil and (1) took it all, or (2) bought it at a discount. The Iraqis determine to whom it is sold, and the price is determined by the world market, not the whims of a group in Washington. If we did it for oil, why did we turn it over to their control? Did we go to war so we could pay $100 a barrel for crude? If we had wanted cheap Iraqi oil, we would have lifted our sanctions on them and purchased it.

By keeeemosabe @ Thursday, February 28, 2008 12:46 AM

Reply to lysander 2.27,8:24 PM
Cowards? OK if you want to consider them cowards have it your way. I just thought the Dems were never as unified, organized or whipped by their leaders as Repubs. You tend to think loose knit groups should seem to be as consistent as one person. But the Dems don't have the presidential bully pulpit and some do speak "out of turn”... So they have some "stragglers" (less partisan types) who may have some Republican tendencies and would tend to vote for war every chance they get. Those guys, the ones with the Republican tendencies I guess are the ones who would get the Dems qualified as cowards...in your mind. I can deal with that.
I think they don't feel as though they have won an election mandate to de-fund the war and are less willing to act unilaterally. That should change with the new Dem Congress with their new Dem prez. They respect elections enough to not have iron type rule without a mandate, but with the new election, your lovely little war will fade away...ever so slowly.
Bush's motivations: Maybe you’re right. I don't really believe he is evil incarnate. I just have such a hard time accepting that the leader of the free world could do such stupid things as entrust our military's destiny and mission to people whose motivations we really don't know...namely Iraqi politicians, whom I suspect that some, if not most, may consider themselves as the passive branch of the Islamic resistance. These people have not been vetted for their allegiance to our military's well being or its mission, yet the future actions and tenure of our military in Iraq is dependent on their decisions. Pray they love us more than their Islamic brethren. Pray very, very hard.
Why not butter instead of guns? Because conervatives worship military power as the only truly worthy gov't expenditure and consider public works projects as socialist, FDR/WPA pap, from what they say. (Not that I can read their minds like Billo can know others' thoughts feel free to express their thoughts for them.)
What part of the military has been privatized? OMG Most of the supply and logistics and civilian personnel protection. And these companies really want to expand their horizons within the military, with an eye toward much more mercenary profits.
Bush family war profiteers? Easy. Google that. or better yet try this link: http://www.democracyrising.us/content/view/57/81/
Shoe on other foot? Well even Bush’s misadventures could be overlooked: 1. had they not put our existential mission at risk 2. Gone out and won the freakin’’ war already! That has a way of absolving many sins, in the eyes of Americans. That’s why Bill Clinton’s Bosnia/Kosovo does not ring with infamy. No endless march through the morass. And he won without a single American battle casualty. No brag...just fact.

Hey gotta go get some rest for tomorrow...Enjoy your War(s)

By lysander @ Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:21 AM

I don't think the Dems are cowards. What's I'm arguing is that if it is as cut and dry and you think it is, the Dems either (1) see the costs of withdrawing as being quite great, as I do, or (2) are cowards. So I don't think they are cowards. I just think that most of the elected Democrats would disagree with you, even while disagreeing with Bush. And I don't think the Democrats had an election mandate to end the Iraq war. They claimed they did though, but have pretty much squandered it. That they must wait until they have a larger majority or a President seems to me that they don't know what to do. It has nothing to do with them "respecting elections." If that were the reason, they wouldn't pass any legislation at all.

And while I agree that the Democrats, in general, like unilateral action less, remember Obama talked about unilateral action in Pakistan. Although I don't completely oppose it, unilateralism is not a Republican-only issue.

If we are quick to judge Republican-leaning Democrats or Democratic-leaning Republicans, then we do not truly seek the reconciliation that is necessary after 8 years of Bush.

And Bush is such an ineffective communicator, I wonder whether his bully pulpit helps the Democrats more than it does the Republicans. So again we disagree as to its effect.

I hope this war fades away, as it has in recent weeks with a lack of IEDs, suicide bombers, and American casualties. And I hope our troops come home soon. I just hope we leave behind something we and the Iraqis can live with, as O'Hanlon and Pollock stated. I don't think this is a lovely war, by the way.

I think we do know the Iraqis' motivations. And although they are not a monolith, it is possible to create a system, as I believe they are doing - Shia-controlled government, considerable federalism granting provincial power to Sunni areas, and a semi-autonomous Kurdish region, all held together by a federal government that is sharing its national revenues, is respectful of the rule of law, and seeks to minimize foreign and illiberal influences - that all Iraqis will benefit from. Although 97% of Iraqis are Muslim, most Iraqis would not even consider themselves Islamists, must less part of the Islamic Resistance (capital letters since it is a proper noun). If you mean Islamic resistance as a non-proper noun, they you are implying a global network of Jihadists. Be careful, because that is the position of the neocons. And they are vetted. Not as well as we would like, and not as well as our military is, but in a country where many people don't know their birthdays much less have a birth certificate, it's awfully difficult to do a background check and test loyalties. It is far from ideal, but it is what we are left to deal with.

Why not give contracts to defense companies without actually going to war? Why was war necessary? After 9/11, a HUGE majority of Americans, I am certain, would have supported upping defense spending. Bush could have had a win/win/win situation: giving kickbacks to his buddies, and making the public feel safe, all while having no American casualties. But he went to war just to secure more contracts? (I have no idea who Billo is.)

Your website is not that convincing. (1) If I were elected president, my sisters and brothers would probably get hired somewhere because of their connections to me. Why was Hillary working for Wal-Mart and the Rose Law Firm and why was Chelsea working for McKensie? Because of their education or their connections? Certainly the latter player a significant role. (2) I have money in Vanguard. Am I a war profiteer? You're talking about companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars and that employ tens of thousands of people. That there also have a Bush as an advisor seems to me to understandable. Come 2009, don't be surprised when people with the last name of Obama, Robinson (Michelle's maiden name), or Clinton and Rodham, and whoever their running mates are, show up on Boards of Advisers. (3) Again, why war? Why the most costly of all adventures? Why would Bush risk American lives and his legacy to benefit his buddies? Couldn't he have had spent our money on domestic projects and then had the mutual fund companies and private equity firms invest in those respective companies? That would then have given him the win/win/win situation I stated above. (4) Assuming that these companies got the job but were not the most qualified for it, I argue this: If I were to start a company, I would give contracts to my buddies. Why not help my friends while they help me? But it doesn't mean that I started the company to give contracts to my buddies. As economists say, there is correlation without causation. And causation would imply that Bush is evil. You've already stated that that isn't so.

Those private companies existed before the Iraq War. And if they do not supply the troops, who will? More troops? There aren't more. We're having enough trouble maintaining troop levels there now as is. And if they're providing our troops with everything from food and water to entertainment and supplies, why should they not make a profit?. Why should a company in the US selling pet rocks make a profit but a company operating in a war zone supporting our troops should not?

Has there EVER been a company of any kind at any time that did not want to expand their horizons?

What is our existential mission? Will that be helped or hurt by our withdrawal from Iraq? If we lose, who wins?

And your view on the results of the war are typical, and misguided. The belief that a war is justified if it is clean and short, but unjustified if it is dirty and prolonged implies that one knows the outcome of the war before it begins. We all wish it were that easy. Most Americans have not lived through a war. When they think wars, they think Bosnia, Gulf War I, Somalia, Granada, et al. Very small and minor conflicts by comparison with the Iraq War, not to mention the world wars, Korea, or Vietnam. And is it alright for America to bomb other nations so long as Americans don't get killed? Incidentally, in almost all of America's wars - Revolutionary, War of 1812, Civil War (if you're a Yankee), WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq - we were losing battles before we started winning battles and then won the war (with Vietnam as the exception on this latter point). What makes Iraq different from these other wars is actually the relative lack of casualties.

I want nothing more than for America to win the "freakin' war already!" We can finally agree. Would a departure lead to a victory? Or do you believe victory is no longer possible?

Lastly, they are not my wars and they are not Bush's wars. Presidents don't fight wars, nations do. If we lose, it will not be Bush's loss, although he'll certainly and rightfully be blamed for it. It will be America's loss. This is your war as well.

By Osoccer @ Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:17 AM

Keeemosabe, So you must be the Lone Ranger. Your disdain for President George Bush blinds you to reality. President Bush’s counter insurgency strategy (or “surge”) is succeeding brilliantly under General Patraeus’ leadership in union with the good Iraqi people. The initial invasion of Iraq went far better than expected, but the subsequent insurgency fueled by al Qaeda was initially tough to defeat because of political opposition by the Defeat-o-crats at home siding with al Qaeda in the media war, and because of the manpower shortage due to the draconian reduction of the size of our total military by former President Clinton. But give our warriors enough time and they can adapt to the enemy of today, as they have shown again in Iraq. So you could help our warriors by supporting them in their pursuit and defeat of AQI, instead of remaining obsessed with the past mythology about alleged, though refuted, deception on the part of President Bush to justify Operation Iraqi Freedom. In other words, get a life.

By bevperl @ Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:24 AM

Keemosabee:
I suggest you learn from Clinton's mistakes. Clinton did nothing except look the other way and the end result was so many Americans killed abroad and 3,000 Americans killed in one day. He ignored eight years of threats and now you want all of us to ignore these same threats and come home because the war is costing too much. It is clear that conducting this war and fighting this war has been difficult, due in large part to certain politicians and their self-indulgent allegiance to their own political ambitions. Demands by these ridiculous legislators to fight this war expeditiously but dont' hurt anybody in the process and if you do, we'll charge you with war crimes, is insane and quite tricky, isn't it? Probably takes quite a bit longer to fight a war under these conditions, wouldn't you say?!
We need to get behind our military and our Generals and allow them to fight this war. What are your credentials? It is irresponsible and dangerously reckless to continue to ignore terrorism, as Clinton did, and as you propose. The safety, freedom and liberty for my grand children and all Americans is priceless, wouldn't you say? How much would you be willing to spend if you knew you could prevent another 9/11 about to happen tomorrow? For you that may be hard to calculate but for the rest of us, we would look to the last "SAFE" seven years and put two and two together.

By bevperl @ Wednesday, February 27, 2008 2:20 PM

Keemo:

I suggest you learn from W's success as your little self is quite safe and has been since W has been in office. The lowest approval ratings ever in the history of our country Dumbo-crats need to leave the war to the Generals and get behind FISA so fools like you can continue to flounder SAFELY in this country provided to you courtesty of the brave men and women of the United States Military!

SAFE SINCE 9/11, that's success.

By aggie66 @ Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:39 AM

Actually Keemosabe I find that you are the arragant one with a load of igornance. The Soviets were defeated in Afaganastan and lost 50,000 troops during the time they were there and pullled out. The caves and caverns in the mountians there have been used for thousands of years to defeat ememies.

W listen to his miltary leaders and went to Iraq whcih drew the enemy out of the mountianous regions into the open. They have since retreat back hoping to apply polictical pressure for us to go into the mountains with our forces in Iraq. We should keep doing what we're doing in the middle east. They want us in the mountains for the killing fields they have built up over thousands of years. So if you so right than you go into the mountains yourself; however, maybe you do not have the intestinal fortitude to go.

By lysander @ Monday, February 25, 2008 2:15 PM

Keeeemosabe, The last time we fought two wars halfway around the world was from Dec '41 to Sept '45, and we won them both. Vietnam was one war, and the only parallel you've established to Iraq is that they are both wars. You inadvertently wrote that the Soviets defeated the Mujahideen; they lost. But they didn't lose because the Mujahideen cannot be defeated, but rather because they had an poorly led and poorly trained Army fighting with the wrong strategy. But that is beside the point. If, for the sake of argument, I agree with you that the Iraq War was a distraction from Afghanistan, what now? I'd offer you the words of Sen John McCain: "Iraq is not Vietnam, Mr. President. We were able to walk away from Vietnam. If we walk away from Iraq now, we risk a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, a haven for international terrorists, an invitation to regional war in this economically vital area, and a humanitarian disaster that could involve millions of people. If we walk away from Iraq, we will be back - possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region." This humanitarian disaster is being prevented by our presence in Iraq. As Pvt. Ryan put it, “For me, it’s providing peace; if we leave, these gangster terrorists will destroy these people.” And that peace matters.

By keeeemosabe @ Monday, February 25, 2008 2:37 PM

20 or 30 years, we must pay that price because W insists that the US military's burden is to prove him right?
Genius... that was a typo... Now, to correct for those who perseverate and put their microscope on the typo smallest errors whilst overlooking the monstrosity of error that is Iraq: ".....the Soviets , on their southern doorstep, could (NOT) defeat the mujahadeen (either.)" (Have you not seen Charlie Wilson's War?)

By lysander @ Tuesday, February 26, 2008 3:42 PM

Keemo: You saying it is a head fake does not make it so. How do you know that this is only a lull? Ultimately I don't know either - no one does - but I am committed to ensuring that it is not a lull but a new path for Iraq. And it is not W baiting us along, nor is it an Iranian mouthpiece in Baghdad. Listen to the Sunni Arab and Sunni Kurdish people and leaders in Iraq. They are neither Persian nor Shia. Are they being duped? Or do they honestly believe that things have changed in Iraq, and that the best way forward is through reconciliation and honest government, through participation and not violence. Saying that the improvements in Iraq are only glimmers of hope minimizes the progress that has been made. The previous benchmarks used to describe our defeat have been reversed: sectarian violence is down to the point where the term civil war is now infrequently used; American casualties and fatalities are down; oil money is being shared; there is local and regional reconciliation; the influence of AQI has been greatly reduced; the flow of refugees has started to return; electricity coverage is up, as are wages, employment, revenues, oil production, GDP, and other macro indicators; there is progress on deba'athification; and the list could go on. Can we dismiss all of these as mere glimmers, and then respond with a line about WMD? And I did not say that these "dead-enders" have fought us to a draw. I said nothing of the sort. The fact is that we are winning, more and more Iraqis are joining our side, and stability is slowly but surely coming to Iraq. A withdrawal from Iraq would surely be embarrassing to not just the US military, but for the US. Look at the strength our enemies garnered after American defeats Beirut, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, the Khobar Towers, and the USS Cole, all of which were small-scale engagements. Think about the recruiting tool Iraq will be when, for the first time - and don't say Vietnam, because that is not what happened - America fully and precipitously withdraws from a war that it has not won, and cedes the territory to the enemy. And incidentally, if Iran is controlling Iraq's politicians, won't our departure give control of Iraq to Iran, and in effect create Iranian hegemony? Is that is what is best for America and our interests? Or for the Iraqis? Or for peace in the Middle East?

If Bush said that about spending and the economy, and I believe you, he's wrong. And while I disagree that the war spending is responsible for the troubles in the economy, military spending only helps defense contractors. But that doesn't make Iraq a pork barrel project. Remember: Congress explicitly funds this war - i.e. it is not pork by definition, unless we're making up definitions- and they have never denied funding. A Democratically-controlled House and Senate must be Bush lackeys, strung along and dancing to his tune.

Click Here to post a comment