Is it Time for a Change in US Policy Towards Iraq?

  • News
  • Thread starter Art
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Death
Army Chief of Staff, General Peter Schoomaker February 2005I think it's important to remember that the "surge" was meant to be a temporary measure to give the Iraqi government time to make political progress and take control of their own security. It was never meant to be a long-term strategy. But, as you pointed out, with Bush's statement about staying in Iraq as long as he is president, it does seem like there is no end in sight.In summary, the conversation discusses the milestone of 2,000 US soldiers killed in Iraq and the challenges that still lie ahead in the country. It also touches on the reasons for the war and the current state of public support for the mission. The conversation
  • #1
Art
Maybe this is a good time for Bush to stop and rethink the path he has chosen with regard to ME policy in general and Iraq in particular.
Another death, another grim milestone for US forces in Iraq.
First it was 100, then 1,000, now 2,000 killed in action for a goal still elusive two-and-a-half years after the invasion.
Whether a landmark or - as the Pentagon says - "an artificial mark on the wall", the latest casualty count is a reminder of the hard road still ahead in Iraq - and at home.
It was supposed to be so easy.
The same images are still fresh in the mind: the triumphant toppling of Saddam's statue, President George W Bush flying into declare "Mission accomplished", a defiant president urging soldiers, "Bring them on".
But now flagging public support for the mission, and the president, is facing another psychological test.
cont.d
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4372634.stm
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I don't think 2000 means anything different than 1999 or 2001, personally.

But, hitting that number causes a lot of interesting comments to come out, some of which I find far more distressing than the 2000 "mark" itself:

President George W. Bush said today the war would require more time and sacrifice, and rejected calls for a US pullout.

<snip>

"The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we have ever faced."
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17039751%255E23109,00.html

It would appear that our actions were part of the creation of this "brutal" enemy.

Ironically, removing Hussein from power is what has created the conditions that allow al-Zarqawi to sow the seeds of jihad in Iraq.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-22-04-2.html [Broken]

Not to mention that democracy doesn't seem to be what we are "cooperating" with Iraq to achieve:

a poll conducted by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority , before the handover to the interim Iraqi government, showed that 92 percent of Iraqis viewed U.S. troops as occupiers with 86 percent wanting them to leave immediately or after a permanent government was elected.

The numbers don't lie. The Iraqis want U.S. troops out of their country. We should have the wisdom to listen to them.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-22-04-2.html [Broken]

... and I wonder if the irony of all this occurs to Bush?

(FTR I am not advocating pullout or not. I am making the point that Bush is not addressing some rather large elephants, in his comments.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Of course this number does not reflect the high number of wounded. The 1,000 mark had no effect, so aside from a day or two of news attention, the 2,000 mark will have little effect as well. Perhaps when it reaches 5,000? Because then Bush will have killed as many of his own people as Saddam gassed to death. :yuck:
 
  • #4
SOS2008 said:
Because then Bush will have killed as many of his own people as Saddam gassed to death. :yuck:

You don't think that's stretching the truth just a bit too far?
 
  • #5
Townsend said:
You don't think that's stretching the truth just a bit too far?
Updated: 6:14 p.m. ET Oct. 21, 2005
JAKARTA, Indonesia - Karen Hughes, who has faced a rocky road since being named Washington’s public relations chief, answered tough questions Friday about the invasion of Iraq and wrongly stated that Saddam Hussein gassed to death “hundreds of thousands” of his people.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9777092/

Now that was stretching the truth just a bit too far, hum?
 
  • #6
SOS2008 said:
Now that was stretching the truth just a bit too far, hum?

How does that make it ok for you to stretch the truth? If you hate Bush then don't act like him.
 
  • #7
Townsend said:
How does that make it ok for you to stretch the truth? If you hate Bush then don't act like him.
Exactly--that's the point. If you link to the article you would read: "5,000 believed to have been gassed" and the point is people condemn Saddam for killing his own people, but don't make the same connection to the sad loss of American lives in this unnecessary war--because of Bush.
 
  • #8
SOS2008 said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9777092/
Now that was stretching the truth just a bit too far, hum?

5000 is the most reported number

She may have been stretching the truth but was more likely thinking of the "Human Rights Watch" report:

5000 gassed
289,000 killed in a less humane fashion. (my words added for effect)
 
  • #9
How were the others killed? Bombings, etc? Mostly kurds? I'm ignorant on these details.
 
  • #10
pattylou said:
How were the others killed? Bombings, etc? Mostly kurds? I'm ignorant on these details.

Google "Human Rights Watch" but ignore the large number of innocents killed by the Clinton embargo and bombings. Instead, try to select the deaths attributed to Saddam. Hope that helps!
 
  • #11
SOS2008 said:
Exactly--that's the point. If you link to the article you would read: "5,000 believed to have been gassed" and the point is people condemn Saddam for killing his own people, but don't make the same connection to the sad loss of American lives in this unnecessary war--because of Bush.

You don't think it's stretching the truth a bit to say that Bush killed 5,000 of his own people (or will have, assuming the death toll eventually reaches that number)?
 
  • #12
Also, are you predicting another 2-3 years of this level of fighting, or do you expect it to get considerably more intense?
 
  • #13
If things could go as desired, there would be military responses on several fronts. What we do know is Bush has said that as long as he is president we will remain in Iraq. How many have we lost each year X 3, and in the next three years there could be escalations with other countries. Other than that, I don't have a crystal ball anymore than anyone else. But taking into account the long-term view and instability that exists worldwide, it is not that far fetched to lose 5,000 Americans, especially when they are not properly equipped.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
I'd add that every military leader has indicated that we need to stay in Iraq for 8 - 10 - 12 more years if we wish to "defeat" the insurgency. (We hope that the Iraqis can take over the efforts here, but that part of the plan doesn't seem to be moving ahead very quickly.)

Lieutenant General Jack Keane said:
Insurgencies are difficult to counter, requiring ten to twelve years to defeat (as in El Salvador, the Philippines, and Malaysia).
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2351

Given the largely unchanging slope of the line in the graph below, over the last two years,

http://www.intelligencesquad.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/slide1.jpg

...it seems that we may see (assuming things don't escalate, and that we don't pull out) 3000 deaths around christmas next year, 4000 deaths around february 2007, and 5000 deaths around June 2008, an election year.

The rate of coalition deaths (over 90% of them American) appears to be proceeding at a steady pace over the last two years. I don't know why that would change, if we keep our policy the same. Presumably the insurgency will ultimately be defeated. But if it takes 10 years, then we are talking about 8000 American deaths.

(And lest we forget, because it's easy to get distracted, defeating an insurgency wasn't the goal when we went in. But the cost and fruits and original goals of this plan, are best left for a different thread. )
 
Last edited:
  • #15
pattylou said:
Given the largely unchanging slope of the line in the graph below, over the last two years,
http://www.intelligencesquad.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/slide1.jpg[/i]

i think that graph and my sense of humor just sent me to hell.
 

1. What is the current US policy towards Iraq?

The current US policy towards Iraq is focused on supporting the Iraqi government in its efforts to combat terrorism and stabilize the country. This includes providing military aid and training, as well as diplomatic support and economic assistance.

2. Why is there debate about changing US policy towards Iraq?

There is debate about changing US policy towards Iraq because of the ongoing conflict and instability in the region. Some argue that the current policy is not effective in achieving long-term stability and security, while others believe that a change in policy could further destabilize the region.

3. What are the potential consequences of changing US policy towards Iraq?

The potential consequences of changing US policy towards Iraq are complex and varied. On one hand, a change in policy could lead to improved relations with Iraq and the potential for increased stability in the region. On the other hand, it could also result in increased conflict and tension, as well as unintended consequences for the Iraqi people.

4. How have previous changes in US policy towards Iraq affected the country?

Previous changes in US policy towards Iraq have had a significant impact on the country. For example, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 resulted in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime and the subsequent destabilization of the country. More recently, the withdrawal of US troops in 2011 has been linked to the rise of extremist groups like ISIS in the region.

5. What factors should be considered when determining if it is time for a change in US policy towards Iraq?

There are several factors that should be considered when determining if it is time for a change in US policy towards Iraq. These include the current security and stability situation in Iraq, the effectiveness of the current policy, the input and concerns of Iraqi leaders and citizens, and the potential consequences of a policy change. It is also important to consider the broader geopolitical context and the potential impact on US relationships with other countries in the region.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
4K
Back
Top