How much more should the US sacrifice to achieve the goal in Iraq?

[David S]

First tell us in your words what the "goal" is in Iraq and then tell us how much more we should sacrifice to achieve it.

[Vasall des Midas]

The goal in Iraq is to keep up the occupation until the oil runs out. I suppose. Or at least, that's the only achievable goal that I can think of that the the US has actually taken steps in the direction of.
And since I do not think they *should* achieve that goal... even though I do not think they should just get the hell out either... I've no idea how to answer the question.

[YRABNNRM]

The goal is the same as it was in Vietnam, "don't lose".

I used to be an advocate of the "stay of the course" mentality but this war is a failure. We shouldn't have to lose another American life because the Iraqi's don't want to fight for their freedom.

It's time to go. If they want to defeat their own cause let them destory themselves, not us.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

Absolutly Nothing.

This was a totally insane enterprise from the start.

[MaC]

David, I think you're preaching to the choir since most of us oppose the war.

I'll say get the job done as fast as possible, with as little casualties (Iraqis and Americans) as possible.  Of course this is ambiguous.  I would say creation of a timetable of withdrawl would be a great way to end this war.

[GOP = Terrorists]

We should sacrifice every single life of every single person who at any time supported the war.  Send them immediately to Iraq armed with whatever equipment that they can afford in equal exchange for all of their wealth.  They shall stay there till Iraq is a peaceful secular liberal democracy or they shall die in the process.

[David S]

David, I think you're preaching to the choir since most of us oppose the war.

I'll say get the job done as fast as possible, with as little casualties (Iraqis and Americans) as possible.  Of course this is ambiguous.  I would say creation of a timetable of withdrawl would be a great way to end this war.

Mac I'm not preaching anything, just asking a reasonable question. In one of W's recent speeches he said there will be additional sacrifices to be made. I think its very reasonable to ask how much more we are willing to sacrifice. And I think there are a number of war hawks on this forum who support continuing the campaign in Iraq. So the choir ain't all singing the same hymn.

My own action on the war would be as follows: Phone conversation:

"Hello General. This is W. Hows the wife and kids?... Yeah we're all fine here too. Well what I'm calling about is this; Start bringing the troops home from Iraq now and don't stop til they're all safe back home. ... Yeah you have a good day too. Bye."

[Citizen James]

62,040,610 lives

But not one penny more.

[JSojourner]

The goal in Iraq is to keep up the occupation until the oil runs out. I suppose. Or at least, that's the only achievable goal that I can think of that the the US has actually taken steps in the direction of.
And since I do not think they *should* achieve that goal... even though I do not think they should just get the hell out either... I've no idea how to answer the question.

I originally thought colonization was the long term goal.  Not a 51st state, but a "protectorate".  But after we arrived, it became clear we were not welcome and people were starting to ask questions about oil.

So then the administration went to plan B:  Iraq is a cash cow for our friends in the defense industry and for the Saudis -- so let's ride that horse until the last possible minute.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

I seriously doubt the US will leave Iraq before the at the very earliest January 2009, I simply doubt the current admins ability to admit "Folks, we've totally and utterly ballsed this up", and so they will leave this mess to the next president, whoever that is.

Of course this presumes that nothing totally dramatic happens in the next two years (Like, Say, Kim Jong-Il invading South Korea or some event similiar magnitude)

[opebo]

The goal was to transfer enormous amounts of money from the public treasury to the wealthy, politically connected supporters of the GOP.  This goal, while completed on a grand and impressive scale, is open ended.

[TheresNoMoney]

The goal was to transfer enormous amounts of money from the public treasury to the wealthy, politically connected supporters of the GOP.  This goal, while completed on a grand and impressive scale, is open ended.

LMAO......classic comment!!

And might I add, he's at least partially correct.

[Smash255]

For Iraq to spruce up and become a peaceful Democracy,  Thats a win nothing less, we can't accept anything less.  Cmon no one listens to our batSh% crazy failure of a President anymore..... 

This is a complete & utter clusterf%#* with not even any chance of anything remotley positive coming out of it.  IAs much as I would like to, we can't pull every one out this second, however we need to start a serious pull back IMMEDIATLEY and have ALL the troops out within a year at the most (and 6-9 months would be ideal).    Unfortunley the stubborn pile of crap in the White House will just spend more $$$ and more brave Americans to their grave for a "goal" that has no chance in hell of happening.

Its always nice to set high goals, however they have to be somewhat ubtainable and its down right criminal (morally at least) to send people to the graves for absolutley nothing.

[Smash255]

For Iraq to spruce up and become a peaceful Democracy,  Thats a win nothing less, we can't accept anything less.  Cmon no one listens to our batSh% crazy failure of a President anymore..... 

This is a complete & utter clusterf%#* with not even any chance of anything remotley positive coming out of it.  IAs much as I would like to, we can't pull every one out this second, however we need to start a serious pull back IMMEDIATLEY and have ALL the troops out within a year at the most (and 6-9 months would be ideal).    Unfortunley the stubborn pile of crap in the White House will just spend more $$$ and more brave Americans to their grave for a "goal" that has no chance in hell of happening.

Its always nice to set high goals, however they have to be somewhat ubtainable and its down right criminal (morally at least) to send people to the graves for absolutley nothing.

I think we have to keep our eye on the larger goal.  And in terms of the larger goal, even the 'success' you described in Iraq would only be a means to an end.

The larger goal is the normalization of the middle east.  It takes pretty sick societies to produce large numbers of people who are willing to commit suicide to make a political point.  Life is worth nothing in these societies, obviously.

The original Iraq strategy is obviously in shambles, for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Bush LBJed this war as his predecessor did in Vietnam -- taking a middle of the road approach that was enough to create a quagmire but not enough to ever win.  And then he got bogged down in it for a long time, and squandered the public's patience and understanding.  It's very late to now be coming up with a new strategy.

Keep in mind that the real playing field here is not Iraq.  It's about keeping somebody's mom or dad from getting blown up while they're working in their office in New York or Chicago.

I think the president had and has good intentions in Iraq, and that it is counterproductive to direct your hate at him over the situation, even under the circumstances.  He did not create the situation in the middle east that is producing terroristic islamic fundamentalism, and we should all remember that.

Well this is FAr from the only thing I disagree with Bush on.

On top of that, the whole Middle east is a problem and that is the larger goal, especially in regards to Fundamentalistic islam.  However, even if we were sucesful in iraq, the chances of it translating to the rest of the Middle east was basically zilch and was fom the start.  Iraq was a terrible place, and Saddam was no question a brutal disctator, however Fundamentalist islam was not a strong hold in Iraq, it was non existennt.  We were never going to change the attitudes towards Fundamentalist Islam, by turning around a country that wasn''t even fundamentalist to begin with.  It took the ball away from going after Al qaeda & the general Fundamentalistic attitude in general and went something almost the complete opposite f that.  Which was a big reason i was against the war from the start, I didn't see anyway going after a non fundamneatistic country with no connection to those who attacked us, or want to cause us the most harm, was going to turn things around in the areas where the threats came from. 

The planning was absolutley brutal, they cascaded aside anyone who didn't see things in the rose colored glasses they seen.  Liberators, out in 6 months, sectarian violence, especially between the Shia's & Sunni's.  while these issues weren't challenged nearly enough (by both sides, outside of a select few) prior to the War, when they were those who bought them up were basically spat upon by the administartion, Patriotism questioned, etc.  Because of the horrendous planning of the adminstration, pure utter stubborness as well as  other things by the administration, we have greatly increased the presence of Fundamentalist islam in the middle East, greatly increased the risks we face, created anew country of Fundamentalism. 

While the overall goal may have been noble (though I'm not sure if what he says now was his orignal intent) what has happened as a result of te action in Iraq falls on his shoulders and he is responsible for the reprocussions of his actions that we will see for a LONG LONG time.

[Vasall des Midas]

I originally thought colonization was the long term goal.  Not a 51st state, but a "protectorate".  But after we arrived, it became clear we were not welcome and people were starting to ask questions about oil.

So then the administration went to plan B:  Iraq is a cash cow for our friends in the defense industry and for the Saudis -- so let's ride that horse until the last possible minute.

You really believe that?  That's kind of sad, actually.

Yeah, I think it was more the other way round, actually. Plan B's the original plan, Plan A is what they fell back on.

[JSojourner]

I originally thought colonization was the long term goal.  Not a 51st state, but a "protectorate".  But after we arrived, it became clear we were not welcome and people were starting to ask questions about oil.

So then the administration went to plan B:  Iraq is a cash cow for our friends in the defense industry and for the Saudis -- so let's ride that horse until the last possible minute.

You really believe that?  That's kind of sad, actually.

Follow the money.  Who got the big no-bid contracts?  Friends of George and Dick.

[Smash255]

Well this is FAr from the only thing I disagree with Bush on.

On top of that, the whole Middle east is a problem and that is the larger goal, especially in regards to Fundamentalistic islam.  However, even if we were sucesful in iraq, the chances of it translating to the rest of the Middle east was basically zilch and was fom the start.  Iraq was a terrible place, and Saddam was no question a brutal disctator, however Fundamentalist islam was not a strong hold in Iraq, it was non existennt.  We were never going to change the attitudes towards Fundamentalist Islam, by turning around a country that wasn''t even fundamentalist to begin with.  It took the ball away from going after Al qaeda & the general Fundamentalistic attitude in general and went something almost the complete opposite f that.  Which was a big reason i was against the war from the start, I didn't see anyway going after a non fundamneatistic country with no connection to those who attacked us, or want to cause us the most harm, was going to turn things around in the areas where the threats came from. 

The planning was absolutley brutal, they cascaded aside anyone who didn't see things in the rose colored glasses they seen.  Liberators, out in 6 months, sectarian violence, especially between the Shia's & Sunni's.  while these issues weren't challenged nearly enough (by both sides, outside of a select few) prior to the War, when they were those who bought them up were basically spat upon by the administartion, Patriotism questioned, etc.  Because of the horrendous planning of the adminstration, pure utter stubborness as well as  other things by the administration, we have greatly increased the presence of Fundamentalist islam in the middle East, greatly increased the risks we face, created anew country of Fundamentalism. 

While the overall goal may have been noble (though I'm not sure if what he says now was his orignal intent) what has happened as a result of te action in Iraq falls on his shoulders and he is responsible for the reprocussions of his actions that we will see for a LONG LONG time.

Unfortunately, some of what you say is true.  I don't believe that you can say that Saddam's Iraq was definitely not a threat, though.  It's a complicated question.

What's been missing is an alternate national security vision or strategy from the opposing party.  Your party is too apt to claim that the only reason any problem exists at all is because of the Bush administration, and that gives the islamic fundamentalist mass murderers one hell of a free ride.

What positive policy would you suggest at this point, beyond pulling out of Iraq?  Remember that this is about protecting America, not your feelings about the president.

The "threat" we faced from Saddam was FAR less than the threat we faced from Al Qaeda and the threat we faced from Fundamentalist islam in general.  I'm not advocating that we should have completley ignored Saddam, but we needed to prioritize our dealings with the Middle East.  Focus mostly on those who ae the biggest threats to us.  We did the exact opposite as it related to Saddam and Iraq.  We put our main focus on the much lesser threat and put the bigger threats on the back burner.  As a result the much bigger threat Fundamentalist islam) has grown rapidly, and spread into Iraq.

At this point I think their is little left we can do, but pull out.  We have reached the point in which their will be utter chaos no matter what happens.  Its a situation in which the Iraqis have to sort our for themselves.  We can't do it for them, the longer we stay there, we just waste more $$ and more American lives to try and turn around a situation in which we won't be able to turn aroound.  One thing we can do is try to train the Iraqi army outside of Iraq (on some neutrual turf, or an American base if that is feasable.  Other than that the nly thing we can do is have a phased withdrawel.  Our presence in Iraq at this point just wastes more American $$$, more American lives, and adds even more fuel to the fire of spreading the fundamentalist cause which in the end could result in an even greater loss of American life. 

At this point I just don't see any chance of anything even remotley positive coming from us staying any longer in Iraq

[theman9235]

to the point where the iraqi gov can support sustain and govern itself with being an ally on terror...

[Smash255]

to the point where the iraqi gov can support sustain and govern itself with being an ally on terror...

and if that never happens???  then what....

[David S]

Well so far 1 person thinks we should sacrifice 100,000 lives, one thinks we should sacrifice the entire population. On the cost side one person thinks we should spend $1 trillion and 1 thinks we should spend more than the GDP of the country. I guess we chalk those answers up to the usual forum nuts who give goofy answers just to be contrary.

[Beet]

If we pull out now, there are going to be a ton of people from the radical Islamist groups saying how they defeated the great superpower, how this is another Afghanistan, how they have a God-given mission, etc. etc. etc.

On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean they win the ideological war. The Soviets didn't lose the Cold War in Afghanistan. And they certainly didn't win it in Vietnam.

[theman9235]

If we pull out now, there are going to be a ton of people from the radical Islamist groups saying how they defeated the great superpower, how this is another Afghanistan, how they have a God-given mission, etc. etc. etc.

On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean they win the ideological war. The Soviets didn't lose the Cold War in Afghanistan. And they certainly didn't win it in Vietnam.

your right however most people dont understand this and are so far caught up under this obsessive emotional shield that rational ideas arent comprehended, and further the enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group.
Their objective is to drive the United States and coalition forces out of Iraq, and use the vacuum that would be created by an American retreat to gain control of that country. They would then use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks against America, and overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East, and try to establish a totalitarian Islamic empire that reaches from Indonesia to Spain. That's their stated objective.
Im sure the bush administration believes that this war is difficult--explains for their different attitudes these months--but lets not be suprised that the enemy is actually FIGHTING BACK. Its not like the jihadists are going to sit back and be like "im bored sh**tless." Second, General Casey said a couple months ago that we have not lost a single military engagement and we need to give our soldiers credit for this. Third, we the United States were to walk away from thisit would give the terrorists that opportunity to turn iraq into a stronghold in which they would have access to the worlds second largest reserves of petroleum; they would use this natural resourse as a political weapon against the United States, Euro, Asia and could pit the industrialized supporters of terror, go after israel and perhaps the arabian peninsula.
and as i agree with the above quote the consequences of cut and run are extremely pernicious. It is the fight of the 21st century. Not only this they could also work in concert with Syria and iran which are active supporters of terror.
We need to avoid this being another Vietnam War, The constant carping about us losing the war and using the people as human shields while the media dumping on unconditional whinning and using emotions are going to force us to lose. Away from the general hubris, i think if it werent for obstinate, liberal college cowards and the media ie rather..i think US could have won the war. 

Nevertheless, since August of 2003, we have had continuous economic growth; we've had job growth in each of those months. And maybe if you start doing it by the measure that most people look at -- are you working, do you own a home, do you have good prospects -- more people are working than ever before. More people own homes. More people are making -- people are making, on average, more money than ever before. More people have college degrees, and home ownership and college degrees among minorities continuing to grow. And basically, the American Dream club is getting bigger. What im saying is the war is not affecting the average American--putting this on a standard scale-.

So my conclusion is send as much troops to start a revolution within the sectors.

[David S]

theman, how would we be better off if we had won the war in Vietnam? And how are we worse off because we didn't win it? Was any of it worth the 60,000 American lives lost there?

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

This question is dissapointing and ignores realit. Appealing to emotion is a terrible way to get anything constructive done, regardless of what you're trying to do.

Ideally we would sacrifice nothing, but at this point we're going to sacrifice something no matter what we do. That's reality, and this question ignores that simple fact. We'll sacrifice our credibility with the international community(what's left of it anyhow) if we draw out as is, with the possibility of a civil war in Iraq that will result in Islamist control and a new, permanent terrorist haven for a country. Dealing with that aftermath would end up costing us money and live. If we stay we'll continue sacrificing money and lives the way we've been doing it. (and, being honest here we haven't sacrificed many from a military perspective - look at the casualty rates for soldiers in our other wars vs. this one and this one is low)

Seeing as we're likely to lose something either way, I say we do what is necessary to quickly get the Iraqi forces up to code so they can do it without us and we can leave. We don't need to make everything perfect, just get them to the point where they have basic self-sufficiency in defense. With the things I know about the situation now, this should take no more than two years, less if we divert more resources to it now(would cost more now, but save in the long term).

[afleitch]

What is the goal again?