Comments on: Willfully Ignoring The Past & Future: Why My Iraq War Mea Culpa Is Staying On Ice

By: mea culpa

mea culpa — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:50:18 +0000

[...] [...]

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:20:07 +0000

Nevertheless, the best hope of long-term stability is a long-term U.S. troop presence, but that impinges on Iraqi national sovereignty.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. By all accounts, our mere presence incites violence.

*****
From Holly:

it is Iran which has repeatedly threatened to destroy the State of Israel and is busily acquiring the means to do so.

I don't know why you have to resort to hyperbole to make your point. Matters of security and war should be discussed reasonably so we can make the best decisions. Your fearmongering is counterproductive.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:34:16 +0000

aba23,

If you really apply the Powell Doctrine, there is no reason for the U.S. to be in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Darfur. However, the defenders and sycophants of the coming Democratic super majority are just never going to admit it nor do they seem willing to ask the hard question of the future Obama Administration.

By: aba23

aba23 — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:00:28 +0000

This conversation goes toward a long-overdue shift from a US-interests to an Iraqi-interests focus on how to advance the goals of less violence AND less authoritarianism in that sadly fractionated country.

Supredestroyer, you will find the answer to your questions in the concept of “mission goals.”

By: Holly_in_Cincinnati

Holly_in_Cincinnati — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:59:45 +0000

I think someone might have mixed up the I-countries, as it is Iran which has repeatedly threatened to destroy the State of Israel and is busily acquiring the means to do so. Cyrus must be spinning in his grave.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:52:31 +0000

the question is how can you justify with the get out of Iraq right now idea with the idea that the Obama Administration will attempt a surge in Afghanistan? Also, how does the left reconcile its belief that more should be done in Darfur while arguing that less should be done in Iraq and Afghanistan?

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:22:22 +0000

Getting on the mission accomplished bandwagon requires a lot of selective memory loss. The forgiving of three steps back based on one step forward doesn't cut it in my book.

By: Jazz

Jazz — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:11:27 +0000

Shaun's analysis hits a lot of the key points for me, but not all of them. Did the surge produce positive results? The answer is, in the short term at least, an unequivocal yes. Anything that results in less people dying has to have a positive connotation. However, I agree that the Iraqis “achieved” a large portion of the reduction themselves by cleansing and compartmentalizing the neighborhoods in the major cities, killing off or driving out those whom they opposed. Add that factor in to huge walls and security checkpoints between areas which would be politically opposed to each other, plus more troops crawling all over, and you get a violence reduction.

I still have zero desire for a long term US presence in Iraq and want the next president to get us the hell out of there. But it's not going to be easy, it won't be quick enough for any die-hard peace activist's tastes, and it most certainly won't be painless. It's distressing to think that a new president will be faced with either not doing this to avoid political fallout, or create a PR nightmare for their next election by trying to do the right thing. This is a thorn in our sides which won't be pulled out quickly or cleanly I think.

By: Dave_Schuler

Dave_Schuler — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:06:23 +0000

As long as U.S. troops stay, Iraq will remain unstable. Yet the more stability the Baghdad government has, the greater the pressure will be for U.S. troops to leave.

Nevertheless, the best hope of long-term stability is a long-term U.S. troop presence, but that impinges on Iraqi national sovereignty.

Yeah, that's pretty much the way I've read the situation, Shaun. I have yet to hear a credible explanation of why and how a near-term withdrawal of U. S. forces from Iraq would impel Iraqi politicians to arrive at a political settlement of their country's problems and I don't think anybody really doubts that such a withdrawal would nullify such security improvements there as have occurred in the last six months.

By: OutOfContext

OutOfContext — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:34:13 +0000

“Each and every one of those schemes put politics ahead of policy, the result of which was the catastrophic first four-plus years of the war.”
I just finished Gen. Sanchez' book and that's pretty much the gist of it. Sanchez has a bigger and more damaging axe to grind than Scott McClellan. I'm surprised that very little's been made of the general's book, compared to the talking head.