Re: Was the Iraq War Worth It?

It is important to democrats for us to not succeed in Iraq.


Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Harry" <harry_price@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4849c225$0$12891$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Donna Evleth" <devleth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:C46E0F74.6C8F4%devleth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


From: "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com


When someone is killing your people, whether is was to be expected or not,
is not the point.

What exactly do you mean here?

Iran is contributing to US soldiers getting killed by supplying the insurgency with weapons and training.

I asked what would you think if Iraq turned into another Afghanistan
fisaco?
I did not ask whether we should concentrate more effort in Afghanistan.

I think that Iraq has already turned into its own kind of fiasco. After
five long years of war, we have very, very little to show for it. OK,
there
are fewer people being killed there these days. But we don't hear much
about some of the other benchmarks, like electricity. Summer has almost
arrived in Iraq: are there more than just a few hours a day to provide
needed cooling?

It does not matter. You either prevent that from happening or you allow it
to happen, by the actions and decisions you make in that theater of
operations.

I believe the people of Iraq think that electricity matters a great deal.

Well, yes. But they stand a better chance of achieveing the goal, without having to spend money on fighting the insurgency.


I worry when we cannot pacify a country of 25 million. I wonder what
can
this country handle if we cannot pacify a country like Iraq, and how
we
can
hope to pacify a country with a much larger population, with an
active
insurgency. I wonder what kind of message that sends to future
adversaries,
especially a country with a very large population like China.

I thought Iraq had an active insurgency. Pacification is at very best
a
very difficult undertaking. The Russians have had some experience
with
it
in Chechnia, even the Chinese have had a few problems with Tibet, just
to
mention the other large countries trying pacification.

Again, that is not my point. I will ask it again, "if" we cannot pacify
a
country with a population of 25 million people, what makes you think we
can
pacify a country with a larger population? Or for that matter, the
question
also applies to what size country can we pacify? And if you do not have
will or backbone to pacify a country as small as Iraq, what does it say
about whether we should ever go to war again? What is the good of being
a
super power, if you do not have the backbone to follow through with what
you
started?

I fail to see the point of this emphasis on "pacification". I do not see
how we can pacify countries where our presence is definitely not wanted,
as
is the case in Iraq. "Super power" and "backbone" are equally irrelevant
in
such situations. The Soviet Union, when it was a super power, was unable
to
pacify Afghanistan, a country where its presence was definitely not
wanted.

No country wants to be forcibly paciifed. The only way to avoid that
problem is NEVER go to war with another country, or wipe them off the face
of the map...then you won't have to pacify anyone because you will never be
the "occupier" or there will be no people that you have to pacify. Is that
what you think should be the policy of the United States, i.e. never go to
war?

No. There is another solution. Get in, accomplish what you want to
accomplish, and get out fast. This is not an impossible aim. George H. W.
Bush managed it in the first Gulf War (aim: to liberate Kuwait, which wanted
to be liberated). Ronald Reagan managed it in Grenada, where the locals
were so steamed at the really far left wingers that assassinated their very
popular Socialist president Maurice Bishop, that they were delighted with
the American intervention. They were equally delighted when, after having
overthrown the really far left wingers, the Americans left, and left the
rest to the locals.

You can get out a whole lot faster, if you defeat the insurgency, and/or give the new Iraqi government the time they need to buldup, train, and field a large enough force, with the proper equipment so that they can do the job on their own. You cannot do that, if you leave before they are able to do that.


Yes, pacification is very difficult when you have a determined
adversary.
It still does not change the message it sends, when you go to war with
a
country, then do not have to will to pacify the country.

This is why the best kind of war is to do your utmost to ensure a quick
victory, then get out. Forget about pacification. Another name for
pacification is quagmire.

Nice sentiments, but what you are saying is, we can upset the apple cart,
and after we do it, we should just leave the mess we created, for someone
else to fix?

What I believe is that we must set a time table for leaving, and stick to
it. This just might motivate the Iraqi government to get its act
together.
We can compare it to welfare recipients, a favorite target of the right.
"Workfare" was supposed to be a substitute. Yet the Republicans want to
continue welfare for the Iraqi government, which has not shown itself to
be
terribly cooperative with the welfare providers, namely us. I agree that
we
made the mess. That was definitely our mistake, and a monstrous one.
Alas,
in making it, we have brought the Iraqis in on it as well, and now they
are
going to have to be part of the solution. A large part, even.

That goes back to where we started this round. It revolves around the
question, is success in Iraq important or not important. You did not answer
that question, so what is your answer?

My answer is that what George W. Bush means by success in Iraq is a mystery
to me. The first definition of success was to find the WMDs and destroy
them. This one did not actually succeed, because there weren't any WMDs.
The next definition of success was to overthrow Saddam. I will admit that
that one was a success. Whether or not it was worth the effort is another
matter. I don't personally believe so. But that's just my opinion. The
third definition of success was to turn Iraq into a functioning democracy
which would be a beacon for the rest of the Middle East. That obviously has
not happened to day, and there is no evidence that it will happen anytime
soon. Thus the only "success" we have managed in Iraq is the overthrow of
Saddam Hussein. As a success, I do not consider this one cost efficient.

You still have not answered the basic question. Is success in Iraq important or is it not importtant. And if it is not important, why is it not important. And I will add another question, which you cannot anwser. Has Barak Obama ever said that success is not important? And "if" he has not said that success is not important, then doesn't it stand to reason, that he also considers success important?

Democrats always said "Cutting and Running" from Iraq is what is important. Which ever candidate that sumps for the fastest exit will "succeed" with them.

Barack Hussein Obama said he would be out in six months, departure would start on day one.

But he has not answered the basic quesiton that I keep asking. He has not said that success is not important, and why it is not important.

.