Baghdad plan is a dazzling success

[Henny]

Then if I'm guessing right, the reference to "mission accomplished" was indeed mission accomplished....Saddam had been taken out, that victory was achieved.  You're definately not the Tee-type of folks here who'd distort that event into some grand proclaimation of a declaration of victory, over all the apsects of Iraq, right?

Sirs, my reference was to the prematurity of his speech. While Baghdad had fallen at that point, the mission had hardly begun - and the mission was more than just taking Saddam out. In comparison, I thought that this mention of dazzling success was premature as well.

[sirs]

Then if I'm guessing right, the reference to "mission accomplished" was indeed mission accomplished....Saddam had been taken out, that victory was achieved.  You're definately not the Tee-type of folks here who'd distort that event into some grand proclaimation of a declaration of victory, over all the apsects of Iraq, right?

Sirs, my reference was to the prematurity of his speech.

Miss Henny, with all due respect, there was nothing pre-mature about it.  Saddam was taken down, mission was accomplished.  He was properly giving celebratory cudos to the men & women that brought it about.  He also made it clear that this war wasn't over.  He made it abundantly clear thru-out this entire ordeal that the war against terror would be long, and costly, in more ways than 1. 

While Baghdad had fallen at that point, the mission had hardly begun - and the mission was more than just taking Saddam out. In comparison, I thought that this mention of dazzling success was premature as well.

Now we're playing semantics.  The mission isn't designated as "1".  The 1st part of the mission in Iraq, was taking out Saddam  and removing the WMD threat, to which prompted our incursion in the 1st place ---> Mission accomplished. 

The 2nd part now is the attempt at facilitating democracy in a region that became void of Governmental control.   No declarations of an over all victory, only acknowldegement that the mission to take out Saddam had been accomplished.  Again, this has been made crystal clear from the beginning, Miss Henny.

Let me add, that it would seem Bush critics want "Mission Accomplished" to mean something along the lines of an overall mission, that way Bush can be castigated for making such a "pre-mature statement".  It can't possibly reference the mission that had just been accomplished, that of taking Saddam out of power, and defusing what WMD threat was posed to Saddam's WMD getting purchased or even given to terrorists like AlQeada, which prompted our moving into Iraq.  Because in that vane, the whole "mission accomplished" get together on the carrier makes too is perfectly reasonable. 

So, "Mission Accomplished" has to be mean the overall mission in the War on Terror, not just Iraq.  In that vane, Bush can then be properly bashed, even if it doesn't make sense with the timing of the speech on the carrier.     

[yellow_crane]

Good. Common ground. And glad we aere off to a good start. I just hope Murtha doesn't try to derail any possibility of success.

I'd be a bit peeved about that. Would you?

I think that Murtha's idea of limiting Pentagon war spending is completely irresponsible. There is a mess in Iraq and the U.S. is morally responsible to clean it up. Instead, Murtha ultimately proposes running away and leaving the clean-up to the innocents left behind.

How is this supposed to improve the American image?

How will this benefit the American interests in the Middle East?

How does this make America any safer from terrorist threats?

There are no benefits to his ideas. Instead, I hope that Murtha understands that he is responsible for the blood of even more innocent Iraqi civilians, not to mention the American and allied soldiers that suffer as the funding dries up.

When you speak of funding, most keeping up with media reports suggest a massive misuse of funds.

Would Murtha have been more correct to suggest that legal inquiries be made first into the corruption surrounding the money?  Shutting off bastard faucets goes a long way in funding.

After all, the War in Iraq is a failure by most accounts, and it is due to corruption rather than funding.  (It didn't help that while GI's needed armor and got stop signs to hang over the vehicles' sides, slick Beau Brummel Bremer was handing out cash by the billions to whoever had wheelbarrows.)

What amounts of funding are necessary to intercede in a civil war and establish peace?

Funding is related to a timeline.

What is the timeline?

And is it not true that the "funding dripping to a stop" is merely a reactionary scare tactic, now becoming a main talking point amoung elected Republicans still hanging in there with the Neocons?  Seems to me I saw several Democrats argrilly making that point in addressing Congress, saying that by no means would existing soldiers in Iraq ever be denied adequate funding?

[BT]

You know, if the dems think that funding of the soldiers and the overall mission is a waste of money they should simply do their duty as elected officials and pull the plug.

I really don't see any of the current bunch being featured in the sequel to Profiles in Courage.

Do you?

[yellow_crane]

You know, if the dems think that funding of the soldiers and the overall mission is a waste of money they should simply do their duty as elected officials and pull the plug.

I really don't see any of the current bunch being featured in the sequel to Profiles in Courage.

Do you?

I don't think dems think funding of soldiers and overall mission is a waste of money, per se.

The funding comes in when they need an instrument, short of impeachment, to end the tactics of the Neocons.  They think the war massively fought wrongly, with the Pentagon and good generals divided--those loyal to the throne and those seeing the travesty of, at best, the war plan, or at worst, the absence of a war plan.

And my point, in the end, is the corruption. 

Why is it that some wail about Dem tactics while avoiding completely the corruption in Iraq?

I don't care if you put in Klauszwits and John Wayne--nobody is going to win a war with so much corruption going on.  Tolerated corruption (black markets, small cache weapons missing, field jackets going home in the mail, etc) only reallly works in occupations where the fighting has settled down. 
 

[BT]

The goal of the funding debate as you stated is political.

I don't see how the soldiers and the success of the mission avoid any negative consequences. How they end up anything less than pawns in some masters of the universe game. Do you?

This is not an exercise of legitimate power. This is sleight of hand, grifter tactics selling us a bucket of piss and labelling it recycled beer.

[Henny]

When you speak of funding, most keeping up with media reports suggest a massive misuse of funds.

Would Murtha have been more correct to suggest that legal inquiries be made first into the corruption surrounding the money?  Shutting off bastard faucets goes a long way in funding.

After all, the War in Iraq is a failure by most accounts, and it is due to corruption rather than funding.  (It didn't help that while GI's needed armor and got stop signs to hang over the vehicles' sides, slick Beau Brummel Bremer was handing out cash by the billions to whoever had wheelbarrows.)

What amounts of funding are necessary to intercede in a civil war and establish peace?

Funding is related to a timeline.

What is the timeline?

And is it not true that the "funding dripping to a stop" is merely a reactionary scare tactic, now becoming a main talking point amoung elected Republicans still hanging in there with the Neocons?  Seems to me I saw several Democrats argrilly making that point in addressing Congress, saying that by no means would existing soldiers in Iraq ever be denied adequate funding?

Crane, I've heard of the alleged corruption, but more than that I hear moaning and groaning on the side of the Dems. I see a purely political tactic to undermine Bush, and by doing so the mission in Iraq is being undermined.

I'm not a Republican. I am not a fan of Bush and all that he has done. I opposed this war from the start. But the point is that America went into Iraq and started something that is their moral responsibility to finish. This civil war you speak of is a product of our interference in Iraq. No matter how long and how much funding it takes. If the only complaint is corruption, then fine. Investigate the corruption. But don't threaten the mission in the region.

The only thing that I can figure amidst all of the moaning going on in D.C. is that the Dems aren't satisfied with just pointing fingers and saying "Look at the mess in Iraq, look at all the mistakes we made." They want the history books to say "...and the "evil" Americans just walked away and left the region in turmoil..."

[Henny]

Miss Henny, with all due respect, there was nothing pre-mature about it.  Saddam was taken down, mission was accomplished.  He was properly giving celebratory cudos to the men & women that brought it about.  He also made it clear that this war wasn't over.  He made it abundantly clear thru-out this entire ordeal that the war against terror would be long, and costly, in more ways than 1. 

Sirs, this is a ridiculous argument based on opinion and perception. I retract, as it really wasn't even the point of anything that I've said in this thread. Whether or not the "Mission Accomplished" speech was or was not premature, calling the current situation a "dazzling success" is.

[sirs]

Whether or not the "Mission Accomplished" speech was or was not premature, calling the current situation a "dazzling success" is.

In all honesty, you were the one who brought in the implied reference to "Mission Accomplished" though when you look at it, it was a perfectly rational reference to make at the time, since it was in reference to Saddam's disposition.  And who's calling Iraq a "dazzling success"?  Or again are we taking a reference to the perceived specific act (the surge), and trying to apply it to the whole of Iraq?  You sort of addressed that yourself, in that it's really too early to call the surge a "dazzling" success, though currently, it does look positive.  Don't you agree?

[Michael Tee]

<<I wouldn't be so hard on the pan arabic insurgents and sectarian militias, who by far have killed the vast majority of the innocents. I'm sure in their minds they are involved in some heroic peoples struggle. >>

It sure is funny when you think how "Iran" is said to be supplying those "pan-Arabic" insurgents with their weapons and explosives.  Why religious Shi'ites would want to facilitate the  mass murder of their innocent co-religionists always seemed like kind of a mystery to me, especially to people with such a strong belief in the afterlife and divine retribution.

I think you ought to look a little closer to home in your search for the guilty parties.   Start, for example, from the cui bono principle.  But don't be hard on them, either - - sirs and R.R. and plenty of others like them also think they are engaged in some heroic struggle for noble purposes.

[BT]

Mikey,

Are you saying that Iran does not benefit from a weakened and distratcted Iraq?

[Henny]

And who's calling Iraq a "dazzling success"?  Or again are we taking a reference to the perceived specific act (the surge), and trying to apply it to the whole of Iraq?  You sort of addressed that yourself, in that it's really too early to call the surge a "dazzling" success, though currently, it does look positive.  Don't you agree?

Sirs. It's the headline of the article that started this debate. Go back to the beginning of the thread.

[sirs]

Sirs. It's the headline of the article that started this debate. Go back to the beginning of the thread.

So it was A) Maliki, and B) specific to the current surge effort by our troops.  Not apparently in reference to Iraq in general, correct?

[domer]

All patriots, as the president has been lately saying, the opposing sides in the surge/anti-surge debate have weighty concerns on their shoulders, which they take seriously. Sripped to their essentials, the Democratic opposition is basically saying that we've achieved all that we can rightly expect (confirmation of no WMD, the deposition of Saddam); that the ideal of a fully-functioning Western-style dmocracy as once sought by the administration is, well, a pipedream; that we are reaping diminishing returns (burgeoning costs in lives and treasure for no real progress toward a stable, self-supporting state); that our presence in Iraq is an irritant and catalyst for increased, virulent violence; and that our presence both destabilizes the region and the country, and that our continued occupation is a thumb in the eye to the entire Arab/Muslim world, provoking rather than quelling terrorist recruiting and sympathies from the average folk. The sidenote politics to these main concerns -- and others -- is the folly of entry into the war and its inept management once there.

The Democrats wisely, in my opinion, counsel a different course, reluctant to follow a failed leader one more time to an unknown destiny, which will be littered with the bodies of our young soldiers. The catch the Democrats face is a treacherous one, however: it is the administration which is in charge of our foreign policy apparatus, and largely controls (and Congress does not) the means of implementing a broader, differently focused program which is the other shoe to its retrenchment on the surge. One-footed, the Democrats can rail and lament and advise, but they can't control the implementation of foreign policy.

An idea emerging from the background is the notion that the Iraqis themselves, certainly at SOME point, must step up and take charge of their own destiny. At some point, regardless of the state of the civil war, the dictates of sound process will require us to leave to avoid the black hole of unlimited commitment. AT SOME POINT, the logic and mandate of that proposition will far outweigh the need to avoid a failed state.

[Michael Tee]

<<Mikey,

<<Are you saying that Iran does not benefit from a weakened and distratcted Iraq?>>

No, I'm saying they're not the ONLY ones who benefit.  And whatever benefit they get from a "weakened and distracted Iraq" is an inferior benefit to what they'd get from a solidly Shi'ite Iraq with the Sunni locked up in the same box that Saddam had previously locked up the Shi'a in .

OTOH, the U.S. has a built-in excuse to stay as long as those car-bombs keep going off and those mysterious, nameless "pan-Arab" "terrorists" keep planting them.  It's an unmitigated benefit for them.