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

[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

 

[pattylou]

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

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

... 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.)

 

[SOS2008]

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.

 

[Townsend]

Because then Bush will have killed as many of his own people as Saddam gassed to death.

You don't think that's stretching the truth just a bit too far?

 

[SOS2008]

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?

 

[Townsend]

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.

 

[SOS2008]

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.

 

[GENIERE]

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)

 

[pattylou]

How were the others killed? Bombings, etc? Mostly kurds? I'm ignorant on these details.

 

[GENIERE]

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!

 

[loseyourname]

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)?

 

[russ_watters]

Also, are you predicting another 2-3 years of this level of fighting, or do you expect it to get considerably more intense?

 

[SOS2008]

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.

 

[pattylou]

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.)

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. )

 

[devil-fire]

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.