A bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives wrote a letter to the President in December 2001 saying that Saddam must be removed from power. Going into Iraq was largely a bipartisan decision, however, the execution by the Administraion has not been as well as it should have been or could have been. From the make up of the group, I don't think this is being done to help the Administration. It may be being done to give America cover. America includes both Democrats and Republicans. I suspect, if Congress ultimately decides to withdraw, most of the blame will be pinned on the "neo cons." While they do share much responsibility, to pin all of the blame on them is overy simplistic, however, it will be done becuase it is the easiest group to blame. They lack the clout within the msm to mount an effective defense, even if they wanted to.
Fortunately we are not there yet. We have not lost yet, however, you are to point out that it will require a massive infusion of more troops. If we can't or won't make the commitment of troops that this will take, we should scale back the mission. We can withdraw to Kurdish areas and monitor the situation and intervene, if we need to, to prevent the establishment of terrorist camps. The sooner the Government makes a decision on this the better.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 21.09.2006 @ 20:57
This enemy is far bigger than simply the coming Islamic wars. The primary supporters of the Islmaic extremists are Russia and China. Unfortunately war with Russia, China, or both of them may be inevitable. I hope not but we must be prepared for the possiblilty. Right now the greatest threat to America is Russia. We are going to need a much larger military to deal with all of this. I think the only way to do this is to reinstate the draft and shift the economy to a war footing.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 19.09.2006 @ 13:04
This post is spot on. If we can't or won't make the commitment necessary to achieve victory, we should withdraw immediately. None of this messing around so Bush or anyone can save face. We can withdraw to Kurdish areas. From there we could intervene, if necessary, to ensure that the areas we abandon don't become bases for terrorists. This can probably be done with a much smaller troop commitment.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 17.09.2006 @ 21:58
I also noticed the silence of the left. They are not going to defend Christians. They hate Christians. Their hatred of all things Christian unites them with Islamic extremists.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 17.09.2006 @ 14:39
SPS: The best thing about Bush's leadership in the GWOT is there have been no attacks on the American home land, as I'm writing this. Also, the Iraqi Baathists and the Taliban have been removed from power. The Taliban is currently trying to retake Afghanistan and there is an Iraqi "insurgency." I'd rather these guys be spending resources trying to recapture Afghanistan and Iraq than spending those resources on world wide terrorism but as you said clearly the results are lacking. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven much more difficult than we anticipated. It seems to me that there have not been enough troops in either place from the start, however, that may be over simplistic.
"The first step to fighting terrorism is getting some decent leadership in place..." I agree. The unwillingness or inability by the Bush administration to hold anyone accountable has been infuriating. We can begin by replacing Rumsfeld. The Democrats are spot on here. They can follow this up by actually suggesting a replacement for Rumsfeld. I would suggest either Senator Lindsay Graham or General Eric Shinseki. More effort should be expended by both parties in trying to find actual solutions rather than trying to simply affix blame or avoid taking responsibilty.
When the Democrats take the House, as they likely will. They can began by securing the borders and calling for massive increases in the size and capability of the Army. They will be in a better position to oversee the Bush administration than they are now. They should over see things to make sure their policies are implemented. As I stated previously, impeachment is probably warranted based on the complete failure to secure the borders and to increase the size of the military, however, at this time impeachment hearings would be a huge distraction. Those resources would be better spent providing over sight of the President and the Exeuctive branch and fighting the GWOT.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.09.2006 @ 22:20
Salty Party Snax
You are right. It comes with living in the White House. The failure of this administration to hold people, especially Donald Rumsfeld accountable is infuriating. I'm sick of this Administration.
You write: "I mean have we ever had an administration who has spent so much time talking about who gets what blame?..." I'm not sure. This President has done a lousy job explaining his case. He has essentially allowed his critics to define the playing field pretty much unopposed.
In the article you link to the Katrina response and uncontrolled spending are discussed. In these areas, it is overly sinplistic to pin all of the blame on the President. The President does deserve a great deal of the blame for these things but to pin all the blame on the White House is oversimplistic and it obscures what we do face.
Frankly the Republicans and this President deserve to lose their majorities in the House and Senate. I fully expect the Democrats to gain control of the House and probably the Senate. When they do gain control, I hope the first order of business will be border security, increasing the size and strength of the military, and cutting spending, in that order.
If they must engage in impeachment hearings, I would respectfully request that they wait until after the GWOT is won. While impeachment of the president is probably warranted based on his gross negligence regarding border security and his presiding over uncontrolled spending, we don't need the destraction right now. This would only divert resources that are needed to win the GWOT.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.09.2006 @ 18:52
Salty Party Snax
Great article from the WaPo by Joe Scarborough. He is correct. There is no way to cut taxes, increase spending, and fight a war all at the same time, however, it is overly simplistic to pin all of the blame on Bush. I hope we can get a real conservative as president when Bush's term expires. Personally I'm sick of him.
By pulling back to Kurdish areas and monitoring the situation from there we can do this with fewer troops and we can monitor the situation to ensure terrorists don't set up bases. We need to get back to the basics of defending America. Reforming the middle east, while a worthy and possibly necessary goal, is simply more than Americans are prepared to do right now.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.09.2006 @ 17:00
I was concerned about where we would get more troops for Iraq or Afghanistan. Its to bad neither party showed the leadership to call for an increase in the size of the military on 9/12/01. If they did, I missed it.
If we are unable to devote the resources to Iraq, then we should pull back to Kurdish areas and monitor the civil war from there. We can intervene to ensure that Islamic terrorists don't set up bases in the areas we abandon. Then we can work on increasing the size and strength of the military. Even if they are not used in Afghanistan or Iraq, they will be needed elsewhere. Right now a draft or substantial increase in the size of the military would be unpopular. Both Democrats and Republicans should lay out the stakes and call for an increase in the size and strength of hte military. If this means a draft, it means a draft.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 16.09.2006 @ 16:44
The Iraq war is not lost yet, however, it is very close to being lost. In order to win, changes will be needed. We either need to increase the number of troops or we need to scale back the mission. It's hard to have much confidence in "stay the course." Right now the results of the current policy don't look promising.
Any commitment of more troops to Iraq should only be done in a manner that is consistent with American national security. The most dangerous threats to American national security are from Russia and China, in that order. We must keep close watch on them and we must be flexible enough to project a credible deterent to them.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 15.09.2006 @ 22:21
You ask: "Why are we asking so much less here?" I'm not sure but here is what I think. The bottom line is both Republicans and Democrats are fundamentally unserious about this. They know, at this time, the American people will not support more troops. To ask for more troops would require the Republicans to admit that mistakes were made. CYA seems more important than winning the GWOT is to them. Also, both Democrats and Republicans seem to be more interested in trying to assign blame than they are in actually trying to fix problems.
A good place to begin would be by firing Don Rumsfeld. The Democrats are spot on to point this out. The Democrats should follow up by suggesting a replacement for him. I think they should suggest either Senator Lindsay Graham or General Eric Shinseki. The Repbulicans have shown they are unserious by trying to run interference for Rumsfeld. They can go a long toward rectifying this situation by stopping this practice and suggesting a replacement. Lindsay Graham and General Eric Shinseki seem to have great military credentials and they seem to be non Bush partisians.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 15.09.2006 @ 16:38