Building on Our Success in Iraq

Seems to me, the time has come for the Iraqis to build upon their own success, and time for us to prepare to leave.

A child does not grow with a parent controlling their every move and protecting them from every harm. Growth depends upon autonomy and learning what works and doesn't through experience and exercise of that autonomy.

There is much to be said for the position of the U.S. standing aside and outside of Iraq, prepared to lend a helping hand should Iraq come to the brink of disaster. But, the time to leave Iraq a free and independent nation, has come.

Our next president has been told this last week that our presence there is wearing out its welcome and it is time for us to make preparations to leave by or before the end of 2010.

It is hard for a parent to let a child assume responsibility for its own actions. But, it must, if it is to avoid becoming and tyrannical parent toward whom the child rebels imperiling self and parent.

David

Helping the Iraqis get on their feet has been the policy all along. This is nothing new. The success of the surge has allowed that to be a real possibility for the first time.

The Iraqis are calling many of the shots. The Charge of the Knights was an Iraqi call and they did well.

Had we pulled out last year, the world would have been in flames.

Now that it looks like we have won, everybody claims to have thought it was a sure thing. They are lying.

Harry Reid told us we had been defeated. I will never forgive him for that. Many others were on that same cowardly train to disaster. I welcome them back to the fight, those who want to come. It is about time they stood up, as we did last year.

Jack, THE WHOLE POINT of the surge and what it cost us Americans was to permit us to exit by giving the Iraqis the opportunity to get their act together.

Either the Surge has been a success and we can now begin leaving, or the Surge has NOT been a success. Logic dictates the veracity of this statement.

By Bush's own words regarding the purpose of the Surge.

You can invent your own reasons for the Surge but they are irrelevant. The Surge had a purpose, and that purpose was defined by Pres. Bush.

The problem is that the peace in Iraq is fragile.
The U.S. can't be the world police.
Iraq is not making the U.S. safer.

David

We ARE drawing down and have been. The Iraqis ARE doing more for themselves. We are beginning to do those things you mention - HAVE begun. In fact, things are so much better that we can probably do it faster. This is what success looks like. Obama advocated leaving 18 months ago. Thank God we didn't listen to him. All we need do is delay the cognitively and experience challenged people until the job is done. We are finishing the job. We are giving the next president options and delivering a victory to the United States. If Obama gets to be president, he can continue to draw down and claim that his plan led to victory. Of course, he will be lying, but I don't expect the MSM to call him on it. In any case, America will have won. And we all know it is better to win the war than a domestic election.

David

We are drawing down. There are fewer U.S. troops than there used to be. I spend a good amount of my time trying to figure out how we will operate with fewer assets to ride with and we are developing hand-off strategies for all our programs. We no longer pay for anything w/o significant Iraqi buy-in and in many cases they are picking up 100% of the project costs for things we would have done months ago and sometimes for things we even had plans to do.

If any journalists would come around, we would show them these things, but they no longer do. They reported on the trouble last year and now they are as rare as rain in the desert. That is why you have not heard about these things. I am a primary source because I am telling you about things I have seen and participated in.

American troops can walk through marketplace taking along unwarlike American civilians. Last year heavily armed troops had to fight their way through them. We can stop and talk to ordinary Iraqis. They are generally friendly. Kids are playing soccer on sports fields where just a couple of years ago insurgents murdered dozens of Iraqi police and elected officials in public ceremonies. The transformation is nothing short of astonishing.

Re history proving that governments eventually change. Yes - they alwasy do. It might take dozens of years for a particular ruler, or hundreds of years for a regime type. In the long run everything changes and not much we do matters to distant posterity. But you cannot plan your day around that. We live now. In the long run we are all dead.

Re Bush's job. Bush is soon history. He made lots of mistakes and did some things right. We don't have the ability to go back,but have to figure things out here and now. Nobody is advocating for the failed policies of pre 2007. Obama perhaps has not noticed the change, but even w/o the cooperation of MSM most people are beginning to see the truth.

Jack wrote: Had we pulled out last year, the world would have been in flames.

The whole world would be in flames?
What a wild prediction.
You don't know that.
Sounds a lot like more fear-mongering to prop up some very weak excuses for the surge and continued occupation of Iraq.
Most Americans ain't buying it anymore.

Jack wrote: Now that it looks like we have won, everybody claims to have thought it was a sure thing. They are lying.

Interesting spin.
There's a price too.
Ofcourse, 155,000 troops should be able to bring some peace to the streets of Iraq, but for how long?
Will it last?
And regardless of what Iraqis do in the future, it is in no way a failure of the U.S. troops.
What happens in Iraq in the future is mostly up to the Iraqis themselves.
And if Iraq decays into violence after the U.S. leaves, will you say we lost?

Will the Iraqis be able to get along with each other after the U.S. withdraws?
The remaining Al-Qaeda (estimated at about only 1300 a few months ago) are no match for 27.5 Million Iraqis.
The real problem in Iraq is the Iraqis' own inability to get along with each other, and the U.S. can't be the world police.
In case you haven't noticed, the U.S. has over $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt, the National debt is over $9.5 Trillion, and these 17+ economic conditions have never been worse ever and/or since the 1930s and 1940s.

And no one has yet credibly answered these simple questions:

• Is the U.S. occupation of Iraq making the U.S. safer?


• If yes, how?


• If yes, aren't there better ways to make the U.S. safer instead of 155,000 U.S. troops in Iraq?

Isn't it hypocrisy to fear-monger about terrorists following us home from Iraq, if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq? First of all, terrorists can come from many places as evidenced by the terrorists of 11-SEP-2001, which are mainly from Saudi Arabia (not Iraq). If we really fear terrorists following us from Iraq, then why not pull our troops out of Iraq, and secure our own borders, and enforce existing immigration laws?

Thus, the argument about terrorists following us from Iraq back to the U.S. are not only weak, but ridiculous and hypocritical. And even if there was some truth to it, there are better ways to deal with it, such as securing our own borders and enforcing existing laws. The U.S. can not be the world police. Especially with $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt (3.81 times the $13.86 Trillion GDP!). The U.S. won't be able in a position to do much of anything if its own economy is destroyed by growing debt of nightmare proportions. Also, is it fair to force any U.S. troop to go risk life and limb for any other purpose other than the best ways to make the U.S. safer. Using U.S. Troops for nation-building and world policing is wrong. It is an injustice to the troops.

d.a.n.

If Iraq decays into violence when we leave, we will have lost. I believe we will leave a fairly stable country. No place is w/o violence, as we saw in India, Turkey etc. But Iraq will be stable. If not, we have failed and the world will pay the price.

BTW - your statement that - of course 150000 U.S. troops should be able to bring some peace to the streets of Iraq betrays an almost Obama-like ignorance of how these things work. I would usually let it pass, but I see this kind of stuff appearing too freqently on the media.

150,000 U.S. troops could not keep order if that was all we had.

Re terrorists coming from anywhere - yes. Most of the suicide bombers in Iraq come from someplace else. They come to Iraq to create chaos. If we were not there, they would come somewhere else, maybe the U.S.

YOu can call that fear mongering if you want. I have seen it close up and I call it reality. Reality sometimes bites. Sorry about that.

You cannot secure against attacks by strengthening borders alone. You have to get at the terrorists and disrupt their networks and - yes - many of them need killing. If you give them the iniative, you will lose.

Jack

If you give them the iniative, you will lose.

I am somewhat confused by this statement. Are you implying that our presence in Iraq does not create cause for energized terrorist efforts? It seems to me that our very presence in the middle east can be viewed as fuel for the ignition of terrorist extremism.

Fear Mongering.

Having a strong, stable, and relatively peaceful Iraq that is an ally in the war on terror and not under the influence of Syria or Iraq should be the goal. We are seeing the first signs that we are on course to acheive it. Having a permanent presence there (like we do in Germany and South Korea and many others) is not a sign of failure, but of victory. Having the quick ability to strike Iran, Syria or any of the myriad of petty thugs and tyrants in the region (Hezbollah comes to mind) is in the strategic interest of the United States as is keeping a close, guarding force near the regions oil supplies.

If we had listened to the defeatists and Hussein apologists amongst us Iraq, and the entire region, would be far bloodier and much more of a disaster than it is today. It is one thing to not have favored the invasion. It is far more seditious to advocate for our defeat(and conversely the victory of our enemies in the region) once it had taken place. Obama has been woefully out of touch with reality about the situation in Iraq as he has pandered to the 'defeat at any cost' crowd on the far Left. We can only hope he gets some common sense before he sits down in the oval office.

Having a strong, stable, and relatively peaceful Iraq that is an ally in the war on terror and not under the influence of Syria or Iraq should be the goal. We are seeing the first signs that we are on course to acheive it. Having a permanent presence there (like we do in Germany and South Korea and many others) is not a sign of failure, but of victory. Having the quick ability to strike Iran, Syria or any of the myriad of petty thugs and tyrants in the region (Hezbollah comes to mind) is in the strategic interest of the United States as is keeping a close, guarding force near the regions oil supplies.

If we had listened to the defeatists and Hussein apologists amongst us Iraq, and the entire region, would be far bloodier and much more of a disaster than it is today. It is one thing to not have favored the invasion. It is far more seditious to advocate for our defeat(and conversely the victory of our enemies in the region) once it had taken place. Obama has been woefully out of touch with reality about the situation in Iraq as he has pandered to the 'defeat at any cost' crowd on the far Left. We can only hope he gets some common sense before he sits down in the oval office.

test

Jack Broadnax wrote: d.a.n. If Iraq decays into violence when we leave, we will have lost.

Nonsense.

We will have lost?
What a huge and unjustified insult to the U.S. troops.
If Iraqis squander the level of peace and security that our U.S. Troops have died and suffered to provide, that is the Iraqis' fault, yet you would blame the U.S. troops?
Regardless of what the Iraqis do with it, it is in no way a failure of the U.S. Troops.
The only true failure is Bush's invasion of Iraq based on inaccurate intelligence (e.g. no WMD).
Too bad so many people had to die and suffer for that obvious blunder.

Also, the U.S. can not afford to be the world police, or the Iraqi police forever.
There are 27.5 Million Iraqis that need to step up to the plate, and soon.
And it now appears Maliki wants to discuss 16 month time-tables.
McCain initially disbelieved that, but McCain now says that he might be able to support a 16 month withdrawl (www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/mccain.larryking/).
Might? Seems to me that's not McCain's choice, but Maliki's and the Iraqis' choice.

Jack Broadnax wrote: I believe we will leave a fairly stable country. No place is w/o violence, as we saw in India, Turkey etc. But Iraq will be stable.

Hopefully there will be peace, but it's not likely. But that choice will be up to the Iraqis. But it's probably unrealistic to think Iraqis will be able to get along with each other for a very long time, and the U.S. can't stay there long enough to make it happen. If the Iraqis blow it, that's their choice, but we should not continue to put U.S. Troops in harm's way for policing the Iraqis or nation building, because it is a disservice to the U.S. Troops to put them in harm's way for any mission that is not the best way to make the U.S. safer.

Jack Broadnax wrote: If not, we have failed and the world will pay the price.

Nonsense.

That's more fear mongering, like saying . . .

Jack Broadnax wrote: the world would have been in flames.

. . . is more wild fear-mongering.

That's sounds like a very lame and desparate attempt to continue the occupation of Iraq.
Besides, if the surge has been such so successful, then we should abide by Maliki's and the Iraqis desire for U.S. withdrawl.

Jack Broadnax wrote: BTW - your statement that - of course 150000 U.S. troops should be able to bring some peace to the streets of Iraq betrays an almost Obama-like ignorance of how these things work.

Nonsnse.

Your statements reveal an almost McCain-like ignorance of reality, since 150,000 U.S. troops did bring some temporary peace to Iraq.
What part of that sentence is false?
Are you now saying that the 150,000 troops (and the surge from 130,000) isn't working.
If you are referring to non-military people in addition, that's another issue and another attempt at obfuscation.
If not, your statement makes no sense at all.
Also, I'm not an Obama (or McCain) supporter.

Jack Broadnax wrote: I would usually let it pass, but I see this kind of stuff appearing too freqently on the media.

Let it pass ? This kind of stuff ?

Jack Broadnax wrote: 150,000 U.S. troops could not keep order if that was all we had.

Duh. Of course (as of 16-JULY-2008), there are Iraqi troops, Iraqi police, about 4100 British troops, 2000 from Georgia, 900 from Poland, 650 from South Korea, 1822 from several other nations, about 145,000 U.S. Troops, and about 180,000 non-military contractors supporting the U.S. troops.

Is that what you mean?
What's the point?
Yet another lame attempt at obfuscation?

If Iraqis can't get their act together, then that's unfortunate.
That fact is, there are not enough Iraqis stepping up to the plate.
Instead, too many Iraqis are insurgents.
The problem is the people of Iraq.
Do you want to discuss that issue?

As of May 2007, the U.S. has about 1,426,705 active duty military, and 1,458,400 in reserve components (for a total of 2,885,105).
The U.S. has a total population of 305 Million.
The ratio is 2,885,105 / 305 Million = 1 / 105.7

Iraq has 27.5 Million people, but as of May 2007, only 6,000 Iraqi troops were trained and able to function independently of U.S. Forces.
Today, one year later, that number is much larger, but even if it were 150,000 Iraqi troops, that's still not enough.
That ratio of 150,000 / 27.5 Million Iraqis = 1 / 183
To be at least equal the U.S. ratio, there would need to be 260,132 Iraqi troops ( 27.5 Million / 105.7 ).
The Iraqis need a lot more police and troops.
The problem is, too many Iraqis are more interested in killing each other, and continuing to put our troops in harm's way to police the Iraqis is not making the U.S. safer, and is therefore a disservice to our troops. While one can make a humanitarian argument for helping Iraq, there's also the question of at what cost, and for how long ?

It is still interesting that those advocating that the U.S. remain in Iraq are unable or unwilling to answer a few simple questions:

• (1) Is risking life and limb of U.S. troops in Iraq making the U.S. safer?


• (2) If the answer to (1) is Yes, then how?


• (3) If the answer to (1) is Yes, then are there possibly better ways to make the U.S. safer than boots on the ground within Iraq?

If these questions can not be answered, then doesn't it raise questions about the true motives and reasons for maintaining U.S. troops in Iraq?

Jack Broadnax wrote: Re terrorists coming from anywhere - yes. Most of the suicide bombers in Iraq come from someplace else. They come to Iraq to create chaos. If we were not there, they would come somewhere else, maybe the U.S.

Most of the insurgents (tens of thousands) in Iraq are Iraqis. But again, the main issue is how to make the U.S. safer ? Are U.S. troops in Iraq the best way to make the U.S. safer? Especially when you agree that terrorists that would come to the U.S. come from all over the world?

Jack Broadnax wrote: You can call that fear mongering if you want.

Thanks. I will. Statements like . . .

Jack Broadnax wrote: If not, we have failed and the world will pay the price.

Jack Broadnax wrote: the world would have been in flames.

. . . is blatant fear-mongering.

Jack Broadnax wrote: I have seen it close up and I call it reality. Reality sometimes bites. Sorry about that.

Nonsense. What have you seen that justifies such wild predictions such as "the world would have been in flames" and "the world will pay the price"

Jack Broadnax wrote: You cannot secure against attacks by strengthening borders alone.

Duh. Internal enforcement is needed too, but securing the borders is one obvious, common-sense part of the total solution.

Jack Broadnax wrote: You have to get at the terrorists and disrupt their networks and - yes - many of them need killing.

Really? Which country has the most terrorists? Iraq or Afghanistan? Where was Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden on 11-SEP-2001 ? What did Iraq have to do with that?

Jack Broadnax wrote: If you give them the ini[ti]ative, you will lose.

Duh. But how is policing and nation-buiding in Iraq making the U.S. safer?

And how do you explain the following trends:

• Daily Insurgent Attacks, Feb-2004: 14


• Daily Insurgent Attacks, July-2005: 70


• Daily Insurgent Attacks, May-2007: 163


• Estimated Insurgency Strength, Nov-2003: 15,000


• Estimated Insurgency Strength, Oct-2006: 25,000


• Estimated Insurgency Strength, June-2007: 70,000

At what cost and for how long are you willing to continue policing and nation-buiding in Iraq?
And what if the Iraqis want the U.S. to withdraw?

Regardless, the U.S. has other priorities too, and some of them are more important than policing and nation-bulding in Iraq.

Especially when the U.S. has $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt, and numerous serious problems of its own, growing dangerously in number and severity?

Especially when more Americans have been murdered in the last 3 years in U.S. by illegal aliens than all U.S. troops have been killed in the last 5+ years in Iraq in the last 5 years, and 18 of the 19 perpetrators of 11-SEP-2001 (some who were illegal aliens and/or had violated several immigration laws), possessed 13 state-issued drivers' licenses and/or 21 ID cards (source: www.9-11pdp.org/press/2004-12-03_factsheet.pdf), and all 19 hijackers had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake; source: www.cis.org/articles/2002/back1202.html) ?

RickIL wrote: [Jack,] Are you implying that our presence in Iraq does not create cause for energized terrorist efforts? It seems to me that our very presence in the middle east can be viewed as fuel for the ignition of terrorist extremism.

Good point. Those increasing "Insurgency Strength" numbers above seem to corroborate that theory.

So, how is U.S. withdrawl giving terrorists the initiative?
Sounds like more fear mongering and a another weak argument for the continued occupation of Iraq.

David M. Huntwork wrote: Having a strong, stable, and relatively peaceful Iraq that is an ally in the war on terror and not under the influence of Syria or Iraq should be the goal. We are seeing the first signs that we are on course to acheive it.

At what cost? That's easy for some who aren't in harm's way.

David M. Huntwork wrote: Having a permanent presence there (like we do in Germany and South Korea and many others) is not a sign of failure, but of victory.

Why does the U.S have to be the world police? And what if the Iraqis want us to leave (as many already do)? Is that making the U.S. safer? Is that the best way to make the U.S. safer? Also, in case you haven't noticed, the U.S. is swimming in debt (over $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt).

David M. Huntwork wrote: Having the quick ability to strike Iran, Syria or any of the myriad of petty thugs and tyrants in the region (Hezbollah comes to mind) is in the strategic interest of the United States as is keeping a close, guarding force near the regions oil supplies.

Nonsense.

That excuse doesn't fly. We already have U.S. troops all over the world (including Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.), not to mention submarines, aircraft carriers, air bases in nearby regions.
The U.S. has a prescence in 134 of 192 nations around the world.
Why?
Perhaps it's really about the Iraqis' oil, eh?

David M. Huntwork wrote: If we had listened to the defeatists and Hussein apologists amongst us Iraq, and the entire region, would be far bloodier and much more of a disaster than it is today.

Hussein apologists? What nonsense.

As to whether there would be more violence, so what?
The U.S. can't be the world police.
And how long will the peace last if the U.S. withdraws? We can't stay there forever.

David M. Huntwork wrote: It is one thing to not have favored the invasion. It is far more seditious to advocate for our defeat(and conversely the victory of our enemies in the region) once it had taken place.

More nonsense. First of all, withdrawing is not defeat. What the Iraqis do with what they have now is up to them. Even if Iraq decays into violence again, that's their problem. It's quite likely they will have their internal civil wars no matter what. The bottom line is that we shouldn't be putting our troops in harm's way unless it is the best way to make the U.S. safer. Calling that seditious merely demonstrates how pathetically weak your statements and position truly are.

David M. Huntwork wrote: Obama has been woefully out of touch with reality about the situation in Iraq as he has pandered to the 'defeat at any cost' crowd on the far Left. We can only hope he gets some common sense before he sits down in the oval office.

Defeat at any cost ?

What complete nonsense.
In case you haven't noticed, Maliki and the Iraqis themselves are calling for U.S. troop withdrawl timetables.
And that won't happen quickly; it could take over a year.
If the Iraqis still can't get it together by then, that's too bad, but putting U.S. troops in harm's way for policing and nation-building in Iraq is not making the U.S. safer.
No matter which way you try to explain how it is making the U.S. safer, I can give you one or more better ways to make the U.S. safer with less danger to U.S. troops.
And all this "defeat at any cost" and "Hussein apologists" stuff is because there is no credible argument as to how Iraq is the best way to make the U.S. safer.
And, fortunately, it appears most Americans agree.

I'm not an Obama supporter, but this is one issue I agree with him about.
The Iraqis have had long enough to get their act together, and if they want the U.S. to withdraw, the U.S. should withdraw.