A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
I’ve talked a lot about what is wrong with Obama. So, let’s talk a little about something Obama is right about. I think we can start drastically drawing down troop levels in Iraq. The war is practically won and the enemy is slinking to Afghanistan with its tail between its leg (probably through and with the help of Iran). Obama says that as President he would draw down troop levels approximately one brigade per month. I say just draw down troops and don’t broadcast how or when we’re doing it.
However, Obama is wrong when he says this war can’t be won militarily. Check out the levels of ethno-sectarian violence since the surge (that Obama opposed vehemently) has created:
Dec06
Apr07
Dec07
May08
And click HERE for the month to month chart graph.
(20) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
![[UPDATE] The “Face” of Military Dating Scams – The Wall of Shame](http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/themes/LondonLive/thumb.php?src=http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2.jpg&w=53&h=41&zc=1&q=100)
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
@Jc great job scammers NEVER seem to get their lies right glad you sme
l_67adf48d1a7f4cfb5ad16cbc7155d263
@ No Name dont you think you can find something better to do besides a
Critical Facts
CJ:
I appreciate the apparent results produced by the surge – at least insofar as the surge has resulted in a reduction in violence, albeit not the intended harmonization of the political process in Iraq among the various political factions.
But while you criticize Obama for voting against the surge (the ultimate success of which remains to be seen), let’s not forget that Obama got it right the first time – we never should have invaded Iraq in 2003.
The “perspective” of ASP as just another right-wing talking point mouthpiece would greatly improve were you to give credit where credit is due!
Desert Sailor
CJ, thanks for the overheads! It is telling.
and Critical Facts,”- we never should have invaded Iraq in 2003.” Talk about opinions?!!! You “perspective” sounds mighty cozy, how is that latte doin? Hope we didn’t interrupt or inconvenience your life style while trying to win freedom for Iraq. Sorry about that, it looks like it worked!!
And now, Afghan part II…
DS
NY-David
I hate it when some donut thinks that all Liberals drink latte’s.
We didn’t invade Iraq and measure to bring Iraqi’s freedom. If that were the case, there were a dozen other countries that we should have invaded that needed it more and didn’t sit on a lot of oil to pay for it.
That said, debates will continue as to whether invading was the right course of action when we expected to find WMD’s all over the place. We did it for selfish reasons and that’s not alltogether a bad thing… call it what it is.
Debate continues to this day about the rightness (or wrongness) about detaining thousands of Japanese Americans during WWII.
As for your useless comment about Afghan part II, we shouldn’t have let it get to the point its gotten two for there to be a part II.
NY-David
Critical Facts
NY-David:
One of the biggest “flip-flops” ever perpetrated against the people of the United States is when the war in Iraq became about freedom for Iraq and not WMD or ties to AQ.
We have become a nation of suckers or, as Norman Mailer put it, stupid and susceptible people!
Ryan
NY David said; “We didn’t invade Iraq and measure to bring Iraqi’s freedom.”
Please reread the Joint Authorization Resolution for military action in Iraq that was drafted and passed into public law on the second of October in 2002. It in fact states removal of Saddam and bringing regime change to Iraq.
Then there is also the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act which was also drafted by Congress and passed into public law, which states that the United States’ policy in Iraq is democratizing it after removing Saddam from power.
It sure looks like we have talked a lot more about freeing Iraq than; stopping the Ba’ath members from helping Al Qaeda, making sure their armed forces doesn’t acquire WMD and use it against Iraqis like they did before, etc.
So tell me, with two public laws that made it our plicy to democratize Iraq, how is it that “We didn’t invade Iraq and measure to bring Iraqi’s freedom”? Sure, freeing Iraq wasn’t our only reason to invade Iraq in 2003, but it was one of the reasons.
As for your claim that if freedom were the reason why we went into Iraq, then there were a dozen other countries that we should have invaded that needed it more. That’s easy for you to say. Iraq is one of 150 countries(some of whom needed it more, and some who didn’t need it as much) who depend on our military, if our troops could handle more, then they would add more countries.
But with only less then 3 percent of our GDP going to our military’s budget, I doubt that they would be able to even if they wanted to. Just like Jack Murtha(I can’t believe that I am agreeing with him) said, our troops are stretched to the maximum.
And, even if they did add more countries, you wouldn’t notice it because the news wouldn’t report it. Plus, the burden wouldn’t be on you, it would be on our troops.
The only thing that is getting paid for by Iraqi oil is the pay check of some Russian/Chinese/Vietnamese/Indian oil company’s CEO. After all, they are the contract holders of Iraq’s oil reserves.
As for CF, stupid and susceptible people choose to listen only to the information sources that vindicate their political stances. So far, you are the only one in this blog to be of such.
Ryan
How does Iraq’s freedom have any relevance to this thread? This thread is about the troops fighting to secure Iraq and make it more peaceful. Don’t get me wrong, in peace there is no doubt that you can enjoy your freedoms better as opposed to pandemonium, but it seems like people are trying to bring this thread off topic.
CJ
Well said, Ryan!!
Critical Facts
Ryan:
A nice revisionist diatribe on the historical justification for war with Iraq but, unfortunately, mostly incorrect.
Here is what W had to say just prior to the invasion: “The world needs [Saddam] to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html
Correct me if I am wrong, but I didn’t read or hear anything about democracy, freedom or the like being the overriding concern during the final run-up to the invasion, and Blair seemed not terribly concerned with those niceties either. Nope, those concerns became paramount only after WMD and links to AQ proved bogus.
You are certainly not alone in your effort to revise history and paint a happy face on this mess but, in doing so, don’t let the tendency to inject biased spin outweigh your ultimate goal, which should be to arrive at the truth!
BTW, I hope college is going well for you; your writing style has improved quite dramatically since we last spoke several months ago!
CJ
CF, are you trying to convince us that this ONE interview and press conference that took place on ONE day is the ONLY thing Bush has EVER said about why we went into Iraq?
ignorant: lack of knowledge, education, or awareness (both liberals and conservative have it, but you win this time)
Critical Facts
Not at all, CJ, here’s a bunch more:
In September 2002, Tony Blair stated that %u201CRegime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction ….”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020924/debtext/20924-05.htm
In November 2002, Blair further stated %u201CSo far as our objective, it is disarmament, not regime change – that is our objective …. the purpose of our challenge from the United Nations is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime change.”
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page1299.asp
In January 2003, Bush stated: %u201CSaddam Hussein must understand that if he does not disarm, for the sake of peace, we, along with others, will go disarm Saddam Hussein.%u201D
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/31/sprj.irq.bush.blair.topics/
In late February 2003, Blair said: %u201CI detest [Saddam's] regime. But even now he can save it by complying with the UN’s demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully.%u201D
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page3088.asp
In his February 5, 2003 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, Colin Powell stated: “the facts and Iraq’s behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.”
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/index.html
On April 10, 2003, Ari Fleischer said: “But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030410-6.html
And here’s Wolfowitz, in May 2003: “For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue – weapons of mass destruction – because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2003/s867453.htm
I can find lots more, but I think you get my point – the talk in 2003 was all about WMD, and not about democracy in Iraq.
Ryan
CF said; “Correct me if I am wrong, but I didn’t read or hear anything about democracy, freedom or the like being the overriding concern during the final run-up to the invasion, and Blair seemed not terribly concerned with those niceties either. Nope, those concerns became paramount only after WMD and links to AQ proved bogus.”
I showed where to read, and if you didn’t see anything about regime change in Iraq, then you didn’t read it. I will reiterate what I had said earlier, read the Joint Authorization Resolution. Plus, nobody said it was the “overriding reason”.
I said it was one(not the only/overriding, however way you want to spin what I had said earlier) of the reasons, and it was.
Also, the links to AQ are not bogus. According to the Institute of Defense Analysis report, Saddam’s Ba’ath government had ties to; EIJ, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and Army of Mohammed. Who are all terror groups within the Al Qaeda terror network.
Back to whether democracy in Iraq was one of the reasons we went into Iraq or not. Rewriting history? Yeah, not even close to what I was doing.
Just to show you why I brought up the Joint Authorization, here’s a slice of what was said in it; “Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime”.
- Here’s the link;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Removing all the fancy words that clutter this slice of the authorization, it quiet frankly says; “regime change”.
Also, the United States government did stress consistently in the months prior to the war that they intended to change Iraq’s regime and put a democracy in it’s place. President Bush made it clear that regime change was one of the reasons for our invasion in his 2003 SOTU address. He also stressed it in his 2002 SOTU as well.
In 2003 he said in the SOTU that the Iraqi people day of liberation was near, and in the 2002 one he talked about making Saddam comply with the U.N. and if he didn’t(which he didn’t) then the U.S. and it’s allies will remove him from power. Just to add veracity to this, here is a link to an article that says something similar.
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL31339.pdf
It’s also pretty apparent that you forgot about Senator Graham’s letter to Bush, which recommended adding the removal of Saddam from power and replacing his government with a democracy as one of the GWOT’s goals. This letter was about 19 going on 20 months before we invaded Iraq.
As you can see, I have a pretty solid reason to believe that regime change was one of the reasons why we went into Iraq. I never said it was the only or “overriding reason” to go into Iraq, but one of the reasons, and to reiterate once again, it was.
CF, if you didn’t hear anything on the subject of removing Saddam’s government in the 18 months prior to the invasion, and you only heard WMD talk, then you have selective hearing. You only paid attention to certain parts of the discussions that took place, and you didn’t pay attention to everything.
Of course, I won’t hold it against you, none of us can pay attention to every single detail with perfect clarity. However, whether you did it on purpose or not lies solely on you.
Critical Facts
Ryan:
So if we wade through our respective comments, is it fair to say that we can agree that while bringing democracy to Iraq was a justification for the invasion, it was not the overriding justification? And, further, can we agree that that the overriding justification was, in fact, supposed stockpiles of WMD?
CJ
Supposed stockpiles that virtually EVERYONE agreed were supposed to be there, I might add (right or wrong).
Ryan
Respectively, no we can’t CF. I say this because if regime change was not the overriding reason, then neither is the “supposed stockpiles of WMD”. To reiterate what Tony Blair had said prior to the initial invasion, WMD was one of the reasons for regime change in the context that the regime was the one who had used the WMD.
So, in fact, I can’t say that WMD was the overriding reason for OIF. Since that would be paradoxical, because according to Mr. Blair, WMD was one of the reasons for regime change, which you and I have agreed wasn’t the overriding reason.
Critical Facts
Ryan:
Pray tell, then, what was the overriding reason for the invasion of Iraq?
Ryan
Ask someone who’s in favor of the war in Iraq, because I am not one of them.
Critical Facts
Ryan:
You copped out. I expect more from you, dude!!
Regardless, it is always a pleasure to converse. Keep up the good work at college!!
Ryan
How did I cop out? If you meant that I was shying away from the topic, then no I wasn’t. My answer stays the same, ask someone who thinks we were right to go into that country in the first place, because I am not on of them.
By the way, one small question. How come I have not once left a statement in any of my comments which stated that we needed to go into Iraq to begin with, yet you think I am in favor of the Iraq war? I simply responded to you when you were wrong. In this thread, feel free to have a look around and count the number of times you were wrong.
Assuming that I was in favor of OIF incorrectly was one, now go find number two and so on. Have a nice day
Ryan
BTW, I think you are confusing me with someone else.
Esoterik
%u201CCorrect me if I am wrong, but I didn’t read or hear anything about democracy, freedom or the like%u201D
OK. You%u2019re wrong. You didn%u2019t read or hear anything about it because to make a conscious endeavor to do so would severely destabilize your pretty little %u201Cpostwar rationalization%u201D house of cards.
“A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America’s interests in security, and America’s belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. . . . The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. . . . A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.” %u2013 President Bush, Feb. 26, 2003.
As this concept was clearly articulated previous to the March 19, 2003 invasion, then any lucid individual recognizes any form of the %u201Cpostwar rationalization%u201D argument to be without foundation.
Certainly, all the players involved were not in agreement on the issue of regime change. As you pointed out in your previous post, Tony Blair was one of those. However, also in the same previous post you provide a quote cited to Wolfowitz which asserted the WMD issue was settled on to surmount bureaucratic stasis. What you intentionally omit from the citation is the precursor statement, %u201CIt was,” he says, “ONE OF MANY REASONS. %u201C (Emphasis mine) Of course this would not have played so well in your argument.
Epiphany: As the Wolfowitz WMD citation was post invasion, by your logic, WMD must of necessity be only a %u201Cpostwar rationalization.%u201D
Now let%u2019s move on to the %u201Cover riding reason%u201D we invaded Iraq in 2003. At the conclusion of the %u201CPersian Gulf War%u201D of 1990-91 in which Saddam Hussein suffered humiliating defeat at the hands of a 34 nation coalition force authorized by the United Nations and lead by the United States, the despotic leader of Iraq agreed to specific conditions in order to secure a cease fire. Over the next 10 years Hussein incrementally and systematically rejected said conditions, failing to ever fully cooperate with efforts of the UN to confirm if previously known or suspected weapons had been destroyed and weapons programs had been ended. He also used this period to launch brutal suppressions against Shiite and Kurd revolts, which lead to increasing enforcement of %u201Cno fly zones.%u201D Arrogantly he persisted in attacking our aircraft deployed to enforce said zones. Additionally Hussein continued to engage in other belligerently provocative conduct such as massing troops near the border of Kuwait in 1994. (You might want to check your Almanac to see who the President was during this ridiculously extended period of %u201Cpatience.%u201D)
Conclusion: The overriding reason we invaded in 2003 was Husain%u2019s failure to comply. Period!