Handing Iraq back to Al Qaeda: How do our Iraq war vets feel about that?

[Lagboltz]

Well I agree on trying to change anyone's culture or nation building or any of that other crap. We should do our best to take out as much of the enemy as possible.

And, moreover, America was invaded on 9/11. Granted, it is not the kind of invasion of the WWII era but an act of war and an attack on our Country nevertheless.

Now whether or not going into Iraq was the right thing to do is certainly debatable.

But, allowing our enemies to have free range over any Country or region to continue planning attacks against us certainly should not be tolerated.

What do you think is going to happen in Iraq once Al Qaeda takes over the whole country?

If the idiotic Iraq government troops are always going to run when faced with Sunni forces or bribes, then all hope is lost for Iraq. The US can babysit them for another decade, but they will continue to pop up like a cockroach infestation as soon as we leave. So it is a dilemma - there is no good solution. We are out of money. We seem to be having luck in catching a lot of would-be terrorists on US soil.

 

[Texas_tea]

We seem to be having luck in catching a lot of would-be terrorists on US soil.

Which "would-be terrorist" is that?

 

[dogtowner]

Cowerdace is normal among these people. They will always turn tail unkess they are assured victory.

 

[Lagboltz]

Which "would-be terrorist" is that?

There was one in the paper just a week or so ago. The FBI knew what he was up to and pretended to sell him arms. There have been a few others in the past years, but it's always chancy in catching them before they do any harm.

 

[Texas_tea]

There was one in the paper just a week or so ago. The FBI knew what he was up to and pretended to sell him arms. There have been a few others in the past years, but it's always chancy in catching them before they do any harm.

Forgive me if I do not share your optimism here. It seems to me this administration is much more interested in going after their political opponents rather than protecting its' citizens from terrorist.

And, with the orchestrated influx of tens of thousands of illegals monthly in this Country by this administration at taxpayer expense in no way in my opinion is an effort to protect us from any kind of "would-be terrorist".

In fact, I would say that is the very opposite of going after would be terrorist.

 

[Lagboltz]

Forgive me if I do not share your optimism here. It seems to me this administration is much more interested in going after their political opponents rather than protecting its' citizens from terrorist.

And, with the orchestrated influx of tens of thousands of illegals monthly in this Country by this administration at taxpayer expense in no way in my opinion is an effort to protect us from any kind of "would-be terrorist".

In fact, I would say that is the very opposite of going after would be terrorist.

Why do you say I am optimistic? I never hinted at that. In fact I said, "it's always chancy in catching them before they do any harm." Both parties have always been more interested in going after each other, but you are digressing. If you think the borders should be more tightly managed, sure lets do that. If you have any other cost effective ideas on keeping terrorism off our soil, let's hear it.

 

[icono1]

What a waste of American lives. Vietnam all over again. I hate our politicians. They are always ready to run after they start a fight and our military bleeds and wins for them. Assholes.

 

[Texas_tea]

Why do you say I am optimistic? I never hinted at that. In fact I said, "it's always chancy in catching them before they do any harm." Both parties have always been more interested in going after each other, but you are digressing. If you think the borders should be more tightly managed, sure lets do that. If you have any other cost effective ideas on keeping terrorism off our soil, let's hear it.

Thinking that this administration is doing anything to protect American citizens is being too optimistic.

And, my cost effective ideas are irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant at this point is what this administration is doing to this Country by intentionally creating its' collapse by flooding us with illegal immigrants.

 

[GBFan]

If the idiotic Iraq government troops are always going to run when faced with Sunni forces or bribes, then all hope is lost for Iraq. The US can babysit them for another decade, but they will continue to pop up like a cockroach infestation as soon as we leave. So it is a dilemma - there is no good solution. We are out of money. We seem to be having luck in catching a lot of would-be terrorists on US soil.

Have you noticed, or are you pretending to ignore, the response of the Iraqi people to the incursion? Have you noticed that they are taking up arms against the insurgents? Does that make them worthy of your support now?

As for the money - we aren't out ... we just choose to use it on welfare programs rather than advancing freedom.

You surely don't believe all the administration PR reports about catching terrorists here, do you? Take a look at 1) the cases they claim - most are clearly entrapment of socially disenfranchised misfits, or 2) the conviction rates of these so-called terrorists.

 

[Lagboltz]

Have you noticed, or are you pretending to ignore, the response of the Iraqi people to the incursion? Have you noticed that they are taking up arms against the insurgents? Does that make them worthy of your support now?

Of course I know about the Shia response. It will be very bloody. The Iraqi people have always been worth my support. But I join the 78% of people that think we should not have gone there in the first place and should not go back in force. If Maliki has really changed his mind and wants targeted bombing by drones and is willing to suffer collateral damage, I have no objection.

The Shia, Sunni and maybe the Kurds will always be at each others throats. Get used to it. There is nothing the US can do to make them tolerate each other.

As for the money - we aren't out ... we just choose to use it on welfare programs rather than advancing freedom.

Don't you realize we are $17 Trillion in debt. I choose welfare programs over ground war in foreign countries. Keep the money to be spent at home rather than blowing it up in a foreign country. Yes, I can predict your response; you will say I'm a communist tree hugging sheeple.

You surely don't believe all the administration PR reports about catching terrorists here, do you? Take a look at 1) the cases they claim - most are clearly entrapment of socially disenfranchised misfits, or 2) the conviction rates of these so-called terrorists.

Of course it's PR. The Right doesn't have a monopoly on PR.

 

[BigRob]

Actually, we can ... we have the capability to completely negate every dictator in the world ... we just don't have the political will. The current Pentagon estimate for the complete subjugation of the Middle East - from Syria to Pakistan - is 2.6 years. THAT is the tactical military solution. But, just as we did in Viet Nam, and as we did in Iraq, our civilian leadership is incapable managing the result.

I'll agree we have the ability to negate every dictator in the world - but we'd probably have huge differences of opinion in the "what happens next" phase.

It ignores reality to just think defeating someone on a military basis means all our other goals will suddenly come to pass. You might offer some further explanation on what "subjugation plans" actually look like. You are talking about essentially invading a nuclear power - a prospect that poses some serious challenges and is fraught with more uncertainty than you want to let on.

Then, I would suggest that you fib when you say that you are committed to freedom and democracy. What you actually meant to say was you're all for those things as long as you got it, but you don't believe that everybody else is granted those inalienable rights.

I believe all people should have those rights. But I also live in the real world. We cannot simply wave a magic wand and generate the desired result.

Did I say that? Nope - I merely cited several examples where the spread of human freedom must be done through fostering, and assisting, those very people denied those freedoms. Those subjugated by tyrants and dictators seek freedom - but do not have the wherewithal to seize the freedoms. It's really convenient for you to complain about your loss of freedoms here in the US, and yet, you are an active participant in denying those rights to others. Your inaction contributes to their serfdom just as assuredly as the actions of their masters.

I supported the Iraq War on the front end, and support air strikes currently. But you cannot just offer vague platitudes and call it policy. There are realities on the ground that are going to need to be worked through. Are we supposed to just kill anyone Maliki says is a bad person? Are we supposed to allow him to use our military to crush political opposition?

Stopping ISIS should be a priority, but even if ISIS never existed, the Iraqi government has a lot of issues to work through.

I rest my case ... you have made it for me. It's okay to go shoot up some other country as long as you get something out of it, but you don't believe in helping people to be free. Your selfishness is appalling, but not surprising. I suppose if they offered to pay you, you would feel differently?

I'm not going to apologize for this viewpoint. Protecting and furthering our interests is and should be a major priority. There are times when nation building might be in our interest, or spreading democracy, but there are also times when it is not.

So ... you're willing to sponsor airstrikes, but nothing more? THAT is the kind of superficial thinking that afflicts our leadership today. "We'll help, as long as it doesn't cost us anything. We're willing to parade in and be the big brother ... but we sure as hell aren't going to help you fight the fight. We'll give you slingshots, but you don't get our best weapons. When the going gets tough, we're outta here! Oh, by the way, what's in it for us?"

I'd prefer to go in with my eyes open - rather than guns blazing with no idea what my goal or even my target is. Becoming the strong arm for Maliki is not a role that the US militsry should be involved in.

Some people try to paint things in shades of gray - but when it comes to war, it is truly black or white. You either win, or you lose ... there is no in-between. This is what you, and the current administration, don't understand. You want to kill them - just a little. You want to defeat them - well, a little bit, anyway. But, you ain't willing to put your ass on the line for somebody else's freedom. If you aren't willing to do that, what right do you have to ask me to put my ass on the line for yours? If you aren't willing to go the whole way, don't take the first step.

You want to define winning and losing on your own terms and assume there can be no other definition on the subject - thst is just not true. Victory and defeat are defined very differently based on who you are asking.

I strongly suggest you review the SOFA negotiations - you are spouting the current administration's spin - and, believe me, it isn't even close.

I've already commented on this in various posts on this thread. There are two ways to take how it went down - regardless of where you assign blame, it presents us with the same set of options today.

Actually, as a 20 year veteran, with two tours in Viet Nam, 14 months in a POW camp, wounded at the battle of Hue, 4 years assigned to the Pentagon, 4 trips to Iraq, and 2 to Afghanistan (in support of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence), I DO believe I can speak, with some authority, for the whole military.

Certainly we can all thank you for your service. There are many posters on this board that have served. But military service alone doesn't make ones voice the sole authority on a military subject. Like any other government body, the military is a large, bureaucratic organization with various opinions.

Several years back, when I was working on the Hill (I don't anymore), we were dealing with various military appropriation issues, and while I maintain the utmost respect respect for those who have served (in any capacity), I thank God our founders put a civilian in charge of the military.

 

[GBFan]

I'll agree we have the ability to negate every dictator in the world - but we'd probably have huge differences of opinion in the "what happens next" phase.

It ignores reality to just think defeating someone on a military basis means all our other goals will suddenly come to pass. You might offer some further explanation on what "subjugation plans" actually look like. You are talking about essentially invading a nuclear power - a prospect that poses some serious challenges and is fraught with more uncertainty than you want to let on.

Nowhere in this discussion have I ever suggested we should 'subjugate' someone. In fact, I haven't even proposed that we return to Iraq. I have merely discussed our responsibility to the citizens of the world.

You, in turn, have used distractions, misrepresentations, and misstatements to avoid acknowledging our greater responsibility.

Someday, if you ask, I'll tell you what I think we should do in Iraq - but, as of yet, you've only assumed you know what I think.

I believe all people should have those rights. But I also live in the real world. We cannot simply wave a magic wand and generate the desired result.

I supported the Iraq War on the front end, and support air strikes currently. But you cannot just offer vague platitudes and call it policy. There are realities on the ground that are going to need to be worked through. Are we supposed to just kill anyone Maliki says is a bad person? Are we supposed to allow him to use our military to crush political opposition?

Stopping ISIS should be a priority, but even if ISIS never existed, the Iraqi government has a lot of issues to work through.

All of that, of course, is true ... but to use it as an excuse to avoid our own responsibility is disingenuous.

I'm not going to apologize for this viewpoint. Protecting and furthering our interests is and should be a major priority. There are times when nation building might be in our interest, or spreading democracy, but there are also times when it is not.

I'd prefer to go in with my eyes open - rather than guns blazing with no idea what my goal or even my target is. Becoming the strong arm for Maliki is not a role that the US militsry should be involved in.

No one has suggested 'nation building' - in fact, I presume you're aware that 'nation building' is a liberal left term used to try to denigrate the US providing assistance to those people who are trying to overthrow their current dictator.

You want to define winning and losing on your own terms and assume there can be no other definition on the subject - thst is just not true. Victory and defeat are defined very differently based on who you are asking.

I've already commented on this in various posts on this thread. There are two ways to take how it went down - regardless of where you assign blame, it presents us with the same set of options today.

This is where you go so horribly wrong - in war, there is only one victory. This liberal BS that we can somehow fight half the battle, and then leave the battlefield, and expect them to play nice is not only naive, it's dangerous.

Certainly we can all thank you for your service. There are many posters on this board that have served. But military service alone doesn't make ones voice the sole authority on a military subject. Like any other government body, the military is a large, bureaucratic organization with various opinions.

Several years back, when I was working on the Hill (I don't anymore), we were dealing with various military appropriation issues, and while I maintain the utmost respect respect for those who have served (in any capacity), I thank God our founders put a civilian in charge of the military.

I never claimed to be the sole authority - the question was asked what veterans think about what's going on in Iraq. I strongly believe I, and my opinion, represent the vast majority. We - and I do mean WE - are sick and tired of being used as mere pawns to be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. We are willing to fight to help those who want to help themselves, to advance freedom - but I'm not interested in dying so Obama can claim he ended the Iraq war (how's that story selling now?) or that he has won the war in Afghanistan and is pulling out (a truly catastrophic decision, by the way).

 

[GBFan]

Don't you realize we are $17 Trillion in debt. I choose welfare programs over ground war in foreign countries. Keep the money to be spent at home rather than blowing it up in a foreign country. Yes, I can predict your response; you will say I'm a communist tree hugging sheeple.

Of course it's PR. The Right doesn't have a monopoly on PR.

You prefer that we make our citizenry dependent on the government, incapable of caring for themselves, unwilling to strive to improve their lot in life? You want the government to control the populace, to dictate how you live?

No - you're not a 'communist tree hugging sheeple.'

You're an embarrassment - to this country, to its ideals, and to its responsibility to the world.

 

[Aus22]

Before We get into any war we should have look at the history of the countries concern. Iraq was a country made by the West at the breakup of the Ottoment Empire. It was never a democracy. When we enter Iraq , the Sunies were in power. They are a minority in Iraq itself but dominate certain areas. We remove the Sunni government and army and put the Shites in power. They were mainly the majority but were only strong in certain areas. The Sunnies want to control their own areas. Unfortunately only an extremist group was prepare to do this. However even moderates sunnies want to control their home lands. Surely we would be better to let the Sites and Sunnies withdraw their boundaries and each rule its own area.

 

[GBFan]

Before We get into any war we should have look at the history of the countries concern. Iraq was a country made by the West at the breakup of the Ottoment Empire. It was never a democracy. When we enter Iraq , the Sunies were in power. They are a minority in Iraq itself but dominate certain areas. We remove the Sunni government and army and put the Shites in power. They were mainly the majority but were only strong in certain areas. The Sunnies want to control their own areas. Unfortunately only an extremist group was prepare to do this. However even moderates sunnies want to control their home lands. Surely we would be better to let the Sites and Sunnies withdraw their boundaries and each rule its own area.

If you're looking for an excuse, this one is as good as any.