Lieberman Rewrites History While Defending McCain, Claims U.S. Leaves Residual Troops In ‘Every Conflict’
Lieberman Rewrites History While Defending McCain, Claims U.S. Leaves Residual Troops In ‘Every Conflict’
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has recently engaged in a frantic effort to “put the toothpaste back in the tube” regarding his notorious 100 years remark on the Iraq war. McCain says that since the U.S. has left troops in South Korea, for example, a prolonged presence in Iraq is also justified.
Yesterday on Fox News, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) went even further than McCain, claiming that the U.S. leaves troops behind to “secure the peace” in “every conflict”:
But the fact is we’re going to need, as we have after every conflict we’ve been in — World War II, Korea, etc., we’re going want to leave troops there to secure the peace that our soldiers have won. It’s clear that’s what he meant.
Watch it:
“Anybody who says that John McCain is for a 100 year war in Iraq is either not informed or intentionally trying to mislead the public,” Lieberman added. In reality, it seems Lieberman is the one who is “not informed.” The U.S. does not maintain a strong contingent of troops in “every conflict,” as history has shown:
– Vietnam: After President Nixon announced a phased withdrawal, the “last U.S. combat troops” withdrew in August 1972. “The last remaining American troops withdrew” by 1973. In April 1975, “the last Americans, ten Marines from the embassy, depart Saigon, concluding the United States presence in Vietnam.”
– Somalia: “All UN and U.S. personnel were finally withdrawn…in March 1995.”
– Haiti: The “last American combat troops in Haiti returned home” in 1996. Final withdrawals were completed in 1999.
McCain claims his remarks are being distorted, but he has repeatedly supported a heavy U.S. presence, for example, even supporting permanent bases in Iraq. Andrew Bacevich of Boston University explains that McCain’s scenario would likely entail a combat-heavy engagement for U.S. troops:
“In Iraq, it’s not even clear there is a nation-state, and there’s little evidence there is an effective Iraqi government,” he said. “That tends to suggest a long-term presence in Iraq will not be a peacekeeping one but one in which we’re engaged in a very, very long, ugly unconventional war.“
Today’s Progress Report asks: when does McCain’s 100 years without casualties start?
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
110 Responses to “Lieberman Rewrites History While Defending McCain, Claims U.S. Leaves Residual Troops In ‘Every Conflict’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (R-CT)
There fixed for you.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:01 pm– Vietnam: After President Nixon announced a phased withdrawal, the “last U.S. combat troops” withdrew in August 1972. “The last remaining American troops withdrew” by 1973.
– Somalia: “All UN and U.S. personnel were finally withdrawn…in March 1995.”
– Haiti: The “last American combat troops in Haiti returned home” in 1996. Final withdrawals were completed in 1999.
I reeeallly don’t think the first two incidents are the type of model the Democrats want to be highlighting as how great things turn out when we do not leave troops behind.
Since we fled Somalia we have since used airpower and probably black-ops to mitigate our intial scamper out of there. As for Haiti, our pattern of enter-stabilize-leave-repeat goes back to the 1800s. We will be back.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:05 pmIT’s ok to go back Kelty, if that’s what’s needed. The problem is staying forever.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:10 pmI say we mount a nationwide offensive against fox.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:11 pmIt’s time they got a taste of their own medicine.
Keltoi Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I reeeallly don’t think the first two incidents are the type of model the Democrats want to be highlighting as how great things turn out when we do not leave troops behind.
Why not? Vietnam took care of itself and is now a stable country with a growing economy.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:12 pmSure Joe, like the troops we left in Beirut, Lebanon after the Marine barracks was blown to hell.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:12 pmOl’ Holy Joe LIEberman is truly an embarrassment.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:14 pmSince we fled Somalia we have since used airpower and probably black-ops to mitigate our intial scamper out of there.
Just like Somalia, a democratic president will be left to clean up another republican foreign-policy blunder.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:18 pmI’m trying to get a care package for all the US troops in Grenada. Does anyone have an address for them?
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:18 pmI see killtoy has no problem with spilled soldiers blood…as long as it’s not his own.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 pmBush senior’s belief that ruthless warlords would just let us come in and conduct humanitarian operations for citizens of warring factions was pure cakewalk fantasy, just like Iraq.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:23 pmNote the qualifier”
“we’re going [to]want to leave troops there to secure the peace that our soldiers have won”
(and note how incredibly bizzare Lieberman’s grasp of history is as he attempts to employ it for political need.)
NIcve to know we WON the Korean war–I could have sworn we didn’t, but who am to question the Senator?
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:24 pmThe reich-wingers are too stupid to realize that the reason why there is instability is because of our very presence. We don’t belong there, simple as that.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:24 pmForTruth Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
IT’s ok to go back Kelty, if that’s what’s needed. The problem is staying forever.
Haiti is in our backyard, going back is easy.
Basically, all three of the conflicts TP lists are losses. You can’t leave residual troops when you lose. It would be legit to debate is it easier to lose, leave and then come back. In Iraq, I do not think that would be the case.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:25 pmYeah, leaving our troops in Iraq has been a raging success….you twit.
I reeeallly don’t think this is type of model the GOPigs want to be highlighting as how great things turn out when we leave troops behind.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:26 pmThe bottom line is that they are continuing to push the vision of the U.S. as Empire. We currently have 700 aknowledged U.S. bases on this planet, with an additional 300 unacknowledged bases. Check this out:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ index.php?context=va&aid=5564
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:26 pmWe have military personnel (Army, Navy, Air Force, CIA) in over one hundred countries around the world. Are we imperialistic? Does Iran have troops in 100 other countries?
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:27 pmIraq is a loss, but you reich-wingers refuse to admit it because by doing so you’d have to admit herr dubyah is a failure and that you are wrong. We don’t belong in the middle east. Fact. By admitting that we belong there makes you no better than Nazis. Fact.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 pmhellinabucket Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I’m trying to get a care package for all the US troops in Grenada. Does anyone have an address for them?
Beat me to it. Do we still have ground forces in Panama? Eh, maybe we do.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 pmMcCain’s mistake-filled record, questionable judgment, calamitous misreading of history, nonchalance about American casualties and notorious short fuse all combine to make him a dangerous choice to lead an America at war. Simply put, John McCain is unfit for command.
For the details, see:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 pm“John McCain: Unfit for Command.”
Buckie Boy Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Sen. Joe Lieberman (R-CT)
There fixed for you.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Israel)
Corrected for you.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Keltoi Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I reeeallly don’t think the first two incidents are the type of model the Democrats want to be highlighting as how great things turn out when we do not leave troops behind.
Why not? Vietnam took care of itself and is now a stable country with a growing economy.
Well, two reasons why not. The first is geo-political. Vietnam “took care of itself” in the form of chaos and genocide that spilled over to neighboring countries and had a government hostile to the US for many years. In SE Asia, that was something we could close our eyes to. In the Persian Gulf, not so much.
The second reason why not is purely political from the Dems point of view. Any candidate who goes up against McCain and says “Vietnam worked itself out” is going to invite images of Helicopters fleeing Saigon with refugees being left on the rooftop. They’d be giving McCain a free shot in ad material.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:30 pmOr Buckie, mayhaps (N(NeoCon)- Israel) would be more apropos.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:30 pmbarfly Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Since we fled Somalia we have since used airpower and probably black-ops to mitigate our intial scamper out of there.
Just like Somalia, a democratic president will be left to clean up another republican foreign-policy blunder.
Can you clarify this statement a tad?
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:31 pmCan you clarify this statement a tad?
#11
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:33 pmWhat is the troop level in Beriut? Did we loose there too? How could the Gipper allow such a thing. Wasn’t he the greatest President since Lincoln? But if we left Beruit as loosers then Reagan was just another cut and runner.
Come on republican posters, square this one up for us all.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pmKeltoi Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Well, two reasons why not. The first is geo-political. Vietnam “took care of itself” in the form of chaos and genocide that spilled over to neighboring countries and had a government hostile to the US for many years. In SE Asia, that was something we could close our eyes to. In the Persian Gulf, not so much.
There was virtually no chaos in Vietnam and no genocide. Yes, people were uprooted and many were sent to camps, but do remember that the “chaos” in the region was a direct result of American intervention in Cambodia and Laos and the destruction from our bombing raids, not because of the Vietnamese government. In fact, the Vietnamese directly intervened in Cambodia to end the chaos and genocide.
And, yes, the Vietnamese government was hostile to the US. It’s a funny thing about having people bombing and killing your citizens, but it does tend to p!ss people off.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:36 pmgummitch ~ I was going to reply, but you said it so well, no need.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:37 pmspecialist f Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I see killtoy has no problem with spilled soldiers blood…as long as it’s not his own.
I see you enjoy sophistry.
But - if the only people qualified to have an opinion on this topic are those who have served, I will leave it to you. That is a legitimate position to have, but it narrows the field as to who gets to comment.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 pmAnd what about Operation Torch? We invaded several countries in North Africa during ww2, but no longer have a presence there.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 pmWe lost in Haiti? Haiti?!? We couldn’t kick Haiti’s ass? Come on Keltoi.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 pmbarfly Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Bush senior’s belief that ruthless warlords would just let us come in and conduct humanitarian operations for citizens of warring factions was pure cakewalk fantasy, just like Iraq.
Okay, thanks, I wasn’t sure which Republican President and which Democratic President you were refering to, past or future tense.
Well, one nice thing you can say about Somalia - it had nothing to do with our National interest and was purely humanitarian. I notice that our intervention in the former Yugoslavia and our troop presence there is rarely criticized. That is because we “won”.
We’ll never know if it was possible to “win” in Somalia the first time through - we left as soon as we took casualties, even though the militia we were fighting took much heavier casulties.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pmKeltoi, I’ll give you some leeway because at least you try to come here and not be totally ignorant and “trollish”. A couple of questions though. I’ll agree that Nam was a Dem’s war,kinda, but how many US lives was it worth? How many more lives is that patch of desert,Iraq worth?Who do you think has more control,Sadr or Maliki?I’ve heard soldiers who have been over there say that it is going to be choas as soon as we leave,be it 1 year or 100 years.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pmKeltoi - Well, two reasons why not. The first is geo-political. Vietnam “took care of itself” in the form of chaos and genocide that spilled over to neighboring countries and had a government hostile to the US for many years. In SE Asia, that was something we could close our eyes to. In the Persian Gulf, not so much.
IF the U.S. had not taken over in Vietnam when the French left, intervented in a civil war and escalted it, the chances of a “bloodbath” may well have been eliminated. Secondly, the war continued for 15 years due to the “domino theory.” That is, the same theory you say we should continue to listen to now. Sorry, but I call bullshit.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:53 pmKeltoi, you are picking and choosing which one’s fit your pattern and discarding those that don’t. Suffice to say that you can’t apply your theory to all cases.
Beruit? Haiti? Grenada?
The fact is Lieberman is playing politics and was sloppy with his choice of words. To be partisan about the particulars only fills a small glass and the rest spills over into the stream of ignorance on both sides.
Republican love it that Joe L. is standing by McCain and it’s salt in the eyes of all democrats.
Democrats love to point out that Joe is bitter and will say things that are untrue to try and bolster his standing with his new friends.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:56 pmSorry, but I call bullshit.
I echo that sentiment. No more “domino” crap. That particular assertion is now 0 - 2.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:57 pmhellinabucket Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
We lost in Haiti? Haiti?!? We couldn’t kick Haiti’s ass? Come on Keltoi.
Haiti surrendered before our troops hit the ground last time.
The history of US conflict with Haiti, back in the 1850s was born out of prejudice. How dare those blacks kick out France and declare themselves no longer slaves. From the 1850s, for 60 years we harassed Haiti with gunboats, manipulated to turn them into a debtor nation ( which they still are today , our first invasion in 1915 was for corporate reasons, because laborers were striking.
In fact most of our invasions in South and Central America were also for Corporate reasons. For US Fruit company and the Oil companies.
Most of the wars the US has started were not for any real threat, but for Corporations. Thats alot of soldiers that died over the many years, not for a real threat to the US, but because their countries dared to buck against US and Multi-national Corps.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:57 pmThanks for the History lesson Wayne. I didn’t know the whole Haiti deal.
Grenada is a great example of disguising one motive with another. The coup was by someone we covertly supported but was unaware they were going to attack. We didn’t really care for the leader in power, partly because he was having the Soviets (yes those Soviets) build an airport on the opposite side of the island. It was well on it’s way to be completed, we saw an opportunity and jumped in. Qwelled the violence (case study in piss poor military execution) and completed an airport at a fraction of the cost and gained an ally.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:05 pmLet’s put to rest this nonsense regarding Sen. McCain’s 100 years remark….The Columbia Journalism Review has called out Sen. Obama for his false and dishonest characterization of McCain’s statement:
“Ever since John McCain said at a town hall meeting in January that he could see U.S. troops staying in Iraq for a hundred years, the Democrats have been trying to use the quote to paint the Arizona senator as a dangerous warmonger. And lately, Barack Obama in particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain’s “100 years” notion.
But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters—if not outright lying to them—about exactly what McCain said. And some in the press are failing to call him on it.”
http://www.cjr.org/ campaign_desk/ the_us_iraq_and_100_years.php?page=all
Some of the press…and ThinkProgress.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:05 pmWayne Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Most of the wars the US has started were not for any real threat, but for Corporations. Thats alot of soldiers that died over the many years, not for a real threat to the US, but because their countries dared to buck against US and Multi-national Corps.
Not to mention covert operations, usually with the same goals.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:06 pmspecialist f Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Keltoi, I’ll give you some leeway because at least you try to come here and not be totally ignorant and “trollish”.
Appreciated. By your name I assume you have served - thank you.
A couple of questions though. I’ll agree that Nam was a Dem’s war,kinda, but how many US lives was it worth?How many more lives is that patch of desert,Iraq worth?
Nam and Iraq are similar in that there seems to be no way out. Until we are completely off oil, I do not see how we can just pull out and hope for the best. Hope in not a strategy.
Who do you think has more control,Sadr or Maliki?
Based on the events of the last two weeks, I would say it is a push but Maliki has the upperhand so long as he can call in US reinforcements when things get tight.
I’ve heard soldiers who have been over there say that it is going to be choas as soon as we leave,be it 1 year or 100 years.
This may or may not be true. The returning vets I have talked with tell me they are doing good, but that the place is such a hell hole it is hard to see progress.
It boils down to this: Is it better for the US to leave as soon as possible regardless of what happens after, or is it better to keep doing what we are doing for another Presidential term? That is Iraq policiy at its simplest for the purposes of the 08.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 pmOl’ Joe just won’t go away and leave us all alone
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:10 pmhellinabucket Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
We lost in Haiti? Haiti?!? We couldn’t kick Haiti’s ass? Come on Keltoi.
I didn’t say we lost. By virtue of its geography, Haiti is so firmly under the thumb of our Navy occupying them with ground troops is pointless. We haven’t left the Carribean.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 pmThere was never any need for the Vietnam war, much like most of our wars. Had we been loyal to Minh after his faithful assistance to the Allies in WWII, rather than to France’s rather undemocratic desire to hold its empire there never would have been a war and Minh never would have turned to China for assistance. We need a new approach to foreign policy. I’m sick to death of this one.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 pmI think what Lieberman really meant to say was, “Anybody who says that John McCain is for a 100 year war in Iraq is either not mislead or intentionally trying to inform the public.” That would better explain why he was so upset.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:14 pmKeltoi Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Well, one nice thing you can say about Somalia - it had nothing to do with our National interest and was purely humanitarian.
———–
lol - Have you taken your tongue out of your cheek yet?
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:16 pmWhat was shown recently in Basra is a switch can be flipped and troops (insurgents) will come out of the woodwork. Then, just a quickly, they can disapear. Mahliki had to go to Iran to broker a deal.
Sadr is flexing a muscle and Mahliki has been marginalized.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:16 pmhellinabucket Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
What is the troop level in Beriut? Did we loose there too? How could the Gipper allow such a thing. Wasn’t he the greatest President since Lincoln? But if we left Beruit as loosers then Reagan was just another cut and runner.
Come on republican posters, square this one up for us all.
This is a great point. There is no doubt Reagan cut and ran after the ‘83 barracks bombing. The shock of 243 dead Marines and a lack of understanding by the general public as to what we were doing there in the first place made the Isolationist wing of the R’s come to life. And what happened after we left? Chaos, massacre, civil war, terrorist safe havens and Syrian hegemony. If you liked Lebanon in the 80s, you’ll love Iraq when we leave under President Obama.
Yes, you could say we already have Chaos, massacre, civil war and terrorist safe havens in Iraq, but I think most would admit it would get much, much worse if we pulled out ASAP and then you could throw in the Iranian hegemony part, too.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:17 pmFor the record (remember that), the whole 100 year war thing is a stretch. McCain didn’t say it (exactly). It’s being used as political fodder much like Rev. Wright and his incindiary rants.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:19 pmGummitch, You are truly engaging in some truly blatant and dishonest historic revisionism when you try to portray Vietnam as some type calm and orderly paradise in the weeks, months and years following the fall of Saigon:
165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’s re-education camps, according to published academic studies in the United States and Europe.
At least 150 re-education prisons were built after Saigon fell 26 years ago. One in three South Vietnamese families had a relative in a re-education camp.
Officially, 34,641 former prisoners and 128,068 of their relatives fled to America, according to the State Department. (Orange County Register)
Here, Gummitch, you can read about the Viernamese boat people and then tell us again how wonderful the Vietnamese government was to its people after the fall of Saigon:
http://www.cnn.com/ SPECIALS/ 2000/ vietnam/ story/ boat.people/
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm39-Exley Let’s look at McSames quote shall we?
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pmQuestioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…
McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.
Think about it Ex,what makes you think that our soldiers will not be targets for as long as they are there? This isn’t Germany or Japan.There will always be somone there that hates what bush/co has done and our guys will be the ones with the target on their backs.
Well, Barry McCaffrey is on C-Span right now, telling congress just how terrible the Iraq situation is. He’s also calling for a re-examination of the use of private contractors. He’s talking of how broken the US services are, how dysfunctional the Iraqi government is, and that the coming civil war between Kurds and Shites over the oil resources of Kirkuk is inevitable.
That’s General Barry McCaffrey, who has just issued this report to congress.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pmKeltoi, will you paint Reagan with the same cut and run brush that people who aren’t in power being painted with? We could have just as easily planted 500,000 troops into Beruit just as we did for the Gulf War and look at where that got us.
By the way, current military leaders are stressing the point that we cannot sustain troop levels for much longer.
Either we pull out of Iraq or we drastically increase our military spending and possibly a draft to sustain this current affair.
Attacks against US forces have risen dramatically in March. To allow our soldiers to remain targets is the most unamerican thing we can do. Either increase troop levels (spending, draft, the whole 9 yards) or we withdraw the vast amount and keep strike forces just over the horizon.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:24 pmhellinabucket Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
What was shown recently in Basra is a switch can be flipped and troops (insurgents) will come out of the woodwork. Then, just a quickly, they can disapear. Mahliki had to go to Iran to broker a deal.
Sadr is flexing a muscle and Mahliki has been marginalized.
Ah, but which muscle? ;)
Seriously - Toasterhead too, if you are out there - I heard during this whole thing that Sadr was confirmed to be in Iran? But if the Mahdi army is fighting the Badr Brigade, which backs Maliki and is pro-Iran, why is Sadr hiding in Iran?
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pm#49 “For the record (remember that), the whole 100 year war thing is a stretch. McCain didn’t say it (exactly). It’s being used as political fodder”
Well-said, HiB….As pointed out in posting #39, the Columbia Journalism Review agrees with you.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pmThat “as long as” proves that McSame doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground!
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pmSilly me, my recollection of Lebanon circa ’80s was that once Israel and the US left and Syria stepped in the heretofore incessent bombing, havoc, and war stopped.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:26 pmspecialist f Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Maybe McCain will blame Lieberman, say that he whispered in his ear to say that. After all, Lieberman was standing right behind him at the time of that exchange.
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/01/mccain-on-iraq1.html
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:27 pmEx,your link is where I got the quote!He said “MAKE IT A HUNDRED!”.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:27 pm#52 Specialist F: “Think about it Ex,what makes you think that our soldiers will not be targets for as long as they are there? This isn’t Germany or Japan.There will always be somone there that hates what bush/co has done and our guys will be the ones with the target on their backs.”
It’s a valid point…I am not saying whether I agree with McCain or not. But I (and CJR) am pointing out that Sen. Obama (and TP) are not reporting what McCain exactly said but rather distorting it.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:28 pmMcCaffrey also said there is no doubt that we will withdraw from Iraq, but that it’s only a matter of time - which the military no longer has, since (says McCaffrey) parents are now counseling their children not to enlist, because they will be stop-lossed into compulsory service, whether they want to, or not.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:29 pmkeltoi…
“I reeeallly don’t think the first two incidents are the type of model the Democrats want to be highlighting as how great things turn out when we do not leave troops behind. “
The post doesn’t suggest that Democrats present a contrary argument to Lieberman, using the same examples. It simply points out some of the inaccuracies in Lieberman’s statements and some of the flawed ‘logic’ that he offers.
Lieberman:
“-World War II, Korea, etc., we’re going want to leave troops there to secure the peace that our soldiers have won”
The US did not win WWII without the substantial help of the British and the Russians—it was a shared victory. There were no insurgencies in Germany or Japan that demanded a US peace-keeping force after ‘major combat operations’ were over.
The US did NOT win against North Korea. The US military in South Korea is there as a guarantee against invasion, NOT an occupying force. Iran for example is not threatening to invade Iraq.
The subject of the post is Lieberman’s revisionism and/or willful ignorance in support of McCain’s willful ignorance regarding Iraq.
The point is that McCain’s and pseudo-independent GOP enabler Lieberman’s arguments are devoid of even basic facts and thus their arguments are inherently flawed.
Both have great influence on foreign policy, one is a presidential candidate. Clearly neither is qualified for their important positions.
This is not about poltical point-scoring, but about accurate information that informs sound decision-making. Neither McCain nor Lieberman have any interest in being so informed.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:29 pmThat attitude is consistent with Bush’s attitude and Bush is persona non-grata even amongst Republicans, let alone amongst amongst independents.
We should stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to fulfill the promise of security we made to the Iraqi people when we invaded their country. Our country is used to things at microwaved speeds, but some things are just not microwave-able, despite the overly optimistic opinions of the Rumsfelds, Feiths, and Wolfowitzs of the world. The blood of American soldiers is indeed on the hands of those leaders who believed that we would be “greeted as liberators”, but that does not alter the fact that a precipitous withdrawel could lead to a situation far worse than current conditions on the ground. I know that my position is in the minority here, and I respect those contraray opinions because we can all agree that we as a nation expect more from ourselves.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:29 pmIran is playing a part in this. They have US forces on both sides of their country and the leaders don’t care for each other. Both leaders have miserably poor ratings in their own country as well and saber rattling is one thing both Bush and Amerdinojad (no i don’t know how to write his name and nor do I care)do to keep the support of their own base.
Iran can be a calming force here. Some day we will leave. Iran and Iraq will still be next to each other. it makes sense to involve the neighbors.
I don’t know who said this but it applies here “I’d rather have them (Iran) inside the tent pissing out then outside pissing in.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:31 pmThe ladies & gents retired in Florida know better, Joey. Read some actual history, then open your mouth. They lived through the times you are referencing. And they’ve been watching you since the last time out.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:32 pmbut that does not alter the fact that a precipitous withdrawel could lead to a situation far worse than current conditions on the ground.
You reveal your corrupted moral absolutism, with statements like this. I have yet to hear you dainty hand-wringers acknowledge that any withdrawl is presumed to be precipitous. That’s what you really mean, right?
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:35 pmWell Nettles, what if it is our very presence that creates the lack of security and progress? Then what?
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:36 pmNettles, then start demanding this administration put this into the budget and stop using supplemental spending that’s not part of the offical budget.
This administration failed to utilize the tremendous patriotism right after 9/11. A draft could have been initiated at that time and the world would be a very different place now. I don’t know if it would be better or not but at least the cards would have been on the table. This continual asking for 10billion here and 60 billion there all the while stating this is the great struggle of our lifetime is contradictory.
They missed the opportunity and squandered any trust most americans had in them.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:36 pmYes, you could say we already have Chaos, massacre, civil war and terrorist safe havens in Iraq, but I think most would admit it would get much, much worse if we pulled out ASAP and then you could throw in the Iranian hegemony part, too.
Keltoi - here’s what we know: we do already have chaos, massacre, civil war and terrorist safe havens in Iraq. Iran is already a major player, since they are aligned with the ruling parties (which we helped put in power), as well as Sadr. We also know that Afghanistan is degenerating by the day, with the Taliban and AQ increasing their power in that region and extending down into Pakistan. Oh yeah…and OBL is still on the loose. To therefore project that it is going “to get much much worse” if we pull out of Iraq is based on…what? Our very presence in Iraq and largely our abandonment of our efforts in Afghanistan seems to be what has driven and continue to drives the madness there.
We lost Iraq to Iran the minute we invaded and began setting up exiles who had resided in Iran for decades as the new leadership. We deserted the battle in Afghanistan in order to control access to oil in Iraq. So we lost it all. Lest we forget, OBL was born and bred in Saudi Arabia, and most of the 911 terrorists were Saudis. Interesting that Saudi Arabia got the free pass, isn’t it?
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 pmThis has been a good thread so far with the lack of stupid trolls. I can respect people who disagree with me, but I have no patience for low brow Morons.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:39 pm64Nettles…maybe next time we have a situation like the run up to Iraq,more people and the MSM will questions some of the Rumfelds,Feiths and Wolfowitz’s. All I know is the next CIC is going to have to clean up ‘lil bush’s MESS!
specialist f…
“Think about it Ex,what makes you think that our soldiers will not be targets for as long as they are there? This isn’t Germany or Japan”
Quite. Germany had to deal with “insurgents” in every country they invaded.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:39 pmJapan had to deal with “foreign fighters”–the Flying Tigers giving support to the Chinese, the Chindits running guerrila attacks in Burma and recruiting the Ghurkas.
impeachcheneythenbush Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Well said.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pmNettles, I agree that the blood of this disaster is on our leaders hands, but the Iraqis will take care of this without our ‘help’. Once we leave. Our continued occupation is preventing them from resolving this. The Sadrists appear to have the upper hand, militarily, and that is how this will be solved. Our continued presence, supporting the puppet government that continues to rely on our support for its existence, is only exacerbating the situation and postponing the inevitable.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pmQuite. Germany had to deal with “insurgents” in every country they invaded.
Yet Patton had no trouble with them, when he oversaw the occupation.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:42 pmummm re: #72….
NOT “recruiting” the Ghurkas–The Ghurkas worked with the British against the Japanese invaders, and together they achieved a common goal.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:42 pmbarfly….
me: “Quite. Germany had to deal with “insurgents” in every country they invaded.
you: “Yet Patton had no trouble with them, when he oversaw the occupation.”
What do you mean?
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:44 pmExley Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Gummitch, You are truly engaging in some truly blatant and dishonest historic revisionism when you try to portray Vietnam as some type calm and orderly paradise in the weeks, months and years following the fall of Saigon:
165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’s re-education camps, according to published academic studies in the United States and Europe.
At least 150 re-education prisons were built after Saigon fell 26 years ago. One in three South Vietnamese families had a relative in a re-education camp.
Officially, 34,641 former prisoners and 128,068 of their relatives fled to America, according to the State Department. (Orange County Register)
Here, Gummitch, you can read about the Viernamese boat people and then tell us again how wonderful the Vietnamese government was to its people after the fall of Saigon:
Screw you, Exley. I never said it was a paradise or that people didn’t die, although your numbers are hugely inflated. I was responding to the characterization that the Vietnamese were responsible for chaos and slaughter “spilling over into neighboring countries.”
Your response is thoroughly and typically dishonest; I said nothing about how wonderful the Vietnamese government was.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:45 pmonoclea Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Silly me, my recollection of Lebanon circa ’80s was that once Israel and the US left and Syria stepped in the heretofore incessent bombing, havoc, and war stopped.
So - all we need to do is bug out of Iraq and everything will be great?
I am trying to remember if I have ever heard anyone criticize Syria’s occupation of Lebanon here.
When the US is in a country, it is all needless killing and chaos. When we leave and a totalitarian dictatorship like Assad or the N.V.A. junta in Vietnam take over, it is paradise.
Yes, I am oversimplifying, but your version of Lebanon after we left and Gummitches version of what happened in Vietnam post 74 glosses over some important points of what we can expect in Iraq is we follow Obamas plan.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:48 pmIt’s not that McCain wants us to be at war with Iraq for 100 years. Rather, it’s that he wants Iraq to be our forward operating base for all those other wars he promised us.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:54 pmhellinabucket Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:36 pm
This administration failed to utilize the tremendous patriotism right after 9/11.
—————
I’m sorry hellinabucket but I just cannot let that one go by without responding.
This administration certainly did “utilize” all that patriotism after 9/11! They exploited it for all it was worth!
While I abhor the way they exploited it for their evil and money-grubbing ends I become particularly angry when I read an obituary of a soldier who died in Iraq in which it says, “_____ joined the military right after 9/11″.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pmspecialist f Says: I see killtoy has no problem with spilled soldiers blood…as long as it’s not his own.
Keltoi Says: I see you enjoy sophistry.
But - if the only people qualified to have an opinion on this topic are those who have served, I will leave it to you. That is a legitimate position to have, but it narrows the field as to who gets to comment.
So by that logic neither Cheney, nor Rumsfeld, nor Rice, nor Wolfowitz, nor even W have the privilege of commenting?
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:59 pmimpeachcheneythenbush Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Keltoi - here’s what we know: we do already have chaos, massacre, civil war and terrorist safe havens in Iraq.
I ceded that point already, but can you at least agree AQI would have a much safer environment if we were gone and that the chances of full scale civil war would likewise escalate?
Iran is already a major player, since they are aligned with the ruling parties (which we helped put in power), as well as Sadr.
Iraq is 60%+ Shia; Saddam had driven many Shia Iraqis into Iran; they won in a free election with tremedous turn out.
We also know that Afghanistan is degenerating by the day, with the Taliban and AQ increasing their power in that region
Do we know this? I read this a lot. I also read a lot about the Taliban getting their assess handed to them in pitched battles fairly often. I would call Afghanistan murky, but “degenerating by the day” a bit of an exageration.
and extending down into Pakistan. Oh yeah…and OBL is still on the loose.
A seperate issue, but yes, Waziristan is the nexus of AQ/Taliban. We could take every guy in Iraq and put them in Afghanistan, and unless we are willing to cross that border OBL would still be safe there.
To therefore project that it is going “to get much much worse” if we pull out of Iraq is based on…what? Our very presence in Iraq and largely our abandonment of our efforts in Afghanistan seems to be what has driven and continue to drives the madness there.
Over the weekend, the Mahdi army fought the Iraqi Army to a standstill and only when US airpower got involved did Sadr tell them to pack it in. Had we not been there to help out, Basra would in all likelihood be Iraq’s version of the Gaza strip. Also, by your logic, our prescence in Iraq is what is driving the “madness” so we should leave. Does that also mean if we leave Afghanistan the “madness” will stop?
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:05 pmKeltoi Says: When the US is in a country, it is all needless killing and chaos. When we leave and a totalitarian dictatorship like Assad or the N.V.A. junta in Vietnam take over, it is paradise.
Junta??? The government of then North Vietnam was the sovereign government of a country artificially created by UN mandate. The NVA was the duly constituted military of that nation.
Moreover, the “junta” didn’t “take over”. They reunified their ancient country and, in the process, tossed out merely the most recent in a long string of invaders, (us).
Oh, and since you brought it up, I was against the Syrian meddling in Lebanon, just as I was the Israeli meddling which often took the form of hostile military action, either directly or through surrogates like the Phalangists.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 pmKeltoi Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:48 pm
So - all we need to do is bug out of Iraq and everything will be great?
I am trying to remember if I have ever heard anyone criticize Syria’s occupation of Lebanon here.
When the US is in a country, it is all needless killing and chaos. When we leave and a totalitarian dictatorship like Assad or the N.V.A. junta in Vietnam take over, it is paradise.
Yes, I am oversimplifying, but your version of Lebanon after we left and Gummitches version of what happened in Vietnam post 74 glosses over some important points of what we can expect in Iraq is we follow Obamas plan.
You’re as bad and dishonest as Exley. I’m not glossing over sh!t, Keltoi. I corrected your claim that chaos and slaughter “spilled over from Vietnam” after the US withdrew. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge rose to power and ran amok because of the chaos created by the US. The very pursuit of the war against the Vietnamese was what “spilled over” for God’s sake. The Khmer Rouge were created by the War, not by the withdrawal.
And, for the record, I don’t know of a single progressive who ever had a good thing to say about Syria, and especially about the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. OTOH, I don’t know how much you know about the history of Lebanon, or if you’re old enough to remember the way that country fell apart or the forces that pulled it apart. If not, I suggest you get some reading done because it is a confusing and heartbreaking story.
The US has to leave Iraq, not only for the sake of its own military viability, but because the region will never achieve any stability with us there as occupiers. There will be deaths, there will be chaos, but pretending that if we just stay there a little bit longer, or a few decades . . . it’s just wish-fulfillment.
At least Obama has a plan. The Republicans? “Ah, we’ll just stay until we win.” Whatever the hell that means.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:13 pmboreas Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
specialist f Says: I see killtoy has no problem with spilled soldiers blood…as long as it’s not his own.
Keltoi Says: I see you enjoy sophistry.
But - if the only people qualified to have an opinion on this topic are those who have served, I will leave it to you. That is a legitimate position to have, but it narrows the field as to who gets to comment.
So by that logic neither Cheney, nor Rumsfeld, nor Rice, nor Wolfowitz, nor even W have the privilege of commenting?
Nor either Clinton, Obama, Gore, etc. etc.
No, I was refuting the point and Specialist seems to have agreed. But I am always willing to take one giant step backward when the point is raised because I haven’t served and regard those who have as having a much higher moral standing to opine.
I just think this would be a pretty small blog if only combat vets got to comment on international politics - likewise our national discourse, though many societies in history have tied citizenship to military service with fairly good results.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pmKeltoi Says: Well, one nice thing you can say about Somalia - it had nothing to do with our National interest and was purely humanitarian. I notice that our intervention in the former Yugoslavia and our troop presence there is rarely criticized. That is because we “won”.
No? Nothing? Not even, I dunno, oil?
Wake up, Keltoi! None of these Bushes or their cronies ever do anything unless there’s a payoff for them.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:17 pmmary Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Very true Mary. Poor choice of words from me.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:18 pmI just wonder where EX and keltoi and the rest of the “we must consider the deaths that would occur if we leave precipitously” group were and where they stood on invading and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s along with our own children………
I was standing up telling everyone that this is a mistake and that hundreds of thousands of people are going to die if we do this…….now, why am I supposed to listen to you now?
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:18 pmGore was in Vietnam. He served. Not that I believe you need to, to have a right to an opinion.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:19 pmI’m sick and tired of pro-war politicians and commentators attacking those of us who opposed this stupid war from the beginning for not coming up with our own constructive proposals for solving the problem. Hey bozos, read my lips: There are no good solutions to the mess you’ve made in Iraq. None. Whatever we do will be the wrong thing. Whichever turn on the road we choose will lead to despair.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:24 pmwell as barfly is indisposed at the moment….
umm….Patton did not oversee an occupation. Nor did the 3rd Army fight any “insurgents”–as in a guerilla force.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pmgummitch Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I think of myself as pretty well versed on the History of the region. Personally, I think the trouble really started at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 when the Turks crushed Byzantine power forever in the Levant, but there are all kinds of times and places you could go to to say “THIS is what screwed it up.” Blame Cain and Abel, I think they lived in the same neighborhood.
I did not intentionally mischaracterize your point on Vietnam, I apologize if it seemed so. My point was, no American politician is going to point to the aftermath of our leaving Vietnam as a good thing. Not if they have any desire to be elected, and especially not if they are running against POW John McCain.
And you may be right, maybe we should just get the hell out and let the people who live there sort it out, however bloody and nasty it gets, at least it won’t be our blood.
But we can only do this when oil no longer matters to us. Otherwise, we will get sucked back in as sure as God made little green apples.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:28 pmonoclea Says: Silly me, my recollection of Lebanon circa ’80s was that once Israel and the US left and Syria stepped in the heretofore incessent bombing, havoc, and war stopped.
Well, the war stopped but the violence didn’t. Syria kept an occupying army in Lebanon and persisted in meddling with the Lebanese government via, among other things, subversion and assassination.
See? They’re just like us, these Syrians!
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:28 pm“At least Obama has a plan.”
Obama’s “plan:”
“[H]is claim that he will withdraw all combat troops from Iraq “within 16 months” of taking office-but “continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq.” He has acknowledged that these will be “combat missions.”
The Obama campaign has tried to square the circle by insisting that Obama will withdraw all 20 combat brigades presently in Iraq. “A different force will be constituted,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton, in an e-mail. “This would not be a brigade engaged in sustained combat. Rather, it would be a strike force that could take targeted action against specific al Qaeda assets.”
The distinction between a “combat brigade” and a “strike force” seems a little spurious. Obama has declined to say whether he would station his strike force inside Iraq or in a neighboring country, such as Kuwait. It sounds a little like a shell game. All combat troops will be withdrawn from Iraq within 16 months, but “strike forces” will be re-introduced as needed.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:29 pmI should have cited the above-posting…It is from the Washington Post.
Also from The Post:
Obama says that some troops must remain to “protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq.” He is more explicit than his rivals in insisting that the other Democratic candidates in saying that the U.S. must be prepared to re-intervene in Iraq “to stop genocidal violence.” According to an Iraq issue paper on Obama’s website:
‘Obama would supply armed escorts to civilians who voluntarily choose to move from religiously heterogeneous areas to communities where they feel they will be more secure. He would reserve the right to intervene militarily, without international partners, to suppress genocidal violence within Iraq.</em>’
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:31 pmonoclea Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Gore was in Vietnam. He served. Not that I believe you need to, to have a right to an opinion.
I stand corrected, and thank you, I did not know that. It seems his service was not worthy of much bio material in his 00 campaign - I watched that sucker pretty close and never heard it mentioned. BUT - service is service.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:33 pmExley Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
The distinction between a “combat brigade” and a “strike force” seems a little spurious. Obama has declined to say whether he would station his strike force inside Iraq or in a neighboring country, such as Kuwait. It sounds a little like a shell game. All combat troops will be withdrawn from Iraq within 16 months, but “strike forces” will be re-introduced as needed.
Funny, but we heard the same thing in the past from the Bush administration. I don’t remember you scoffing about it then. In fact, it’s been proposed in some form repeatedly: US troops drawn down, and pull out of active combat but a “permanent” base is located in the region so that the troops (hmm, sort of like a “strike force”) can be quickly re-introduced into hot spots.
Since y’all are convinced the country will turn into a bloodbath the moment US troops are withdrawn, I’d think you’d be all over this as a brilliant idea. Oh, wait, IOKIYAR.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:35 pmThis war is a wildfire blazing across the body and soul of this nation. None of the war-makers — not one — will escape unburned. Joe, you’re going to spend the rest of your life trying, pitifully and in vain, to somehow explain why you helped to unleash this disaster, let along why you refused to change course even years after the futility was already plain to anyone willing to see.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:37 pmKeltoi Says: But I am always willing to take one giant step backward when the point is raised because I haven’t served and regard those who have as having a much higher moral standing to opine.
What I most object to is your statement that only those who have served “get to comment”. That is why I mentioned those “commentators” like Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld et al.
Now, I have served so I guess I get to comment and what I want to say is this: Service does not bestow a higher moral standing or even a higher degree of understanding. We are all possessed of differing degrees of tactical and strategic thinking skills. Some with high marks never served. Some with low marks have served.
That’s just the way it is in life. You have to listen to what people have to say and draw your own conclusions in light of your own experience and your own native gifts.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm#97 Keltoi,
Gore should be given credit not only for his service but for not hyping it…Here is what he said in his 2000 acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention about his military service:
“I was an Army reporter in Vietnam. When I was there, I didn’t do the most, or run the gravest danger. But I was proud to wear my country’s uniform.”
I always thought that was a classy line by Gore.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:43 pmjees, do you ever read this crap before you hit the submit button? Yeah, you were a vet…..but not really…from what I heard…..
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:46 pm#83 - I ceded that point already, but can you at least agree AQI would have a much safer environment if we were gone and that the chances of full scale civil war would likewise escalate?
AQ in Mesopotamia was a home-grown group of Sunni, which was joined by the larger organization out of Afghanistan. They wouldn’t have been there, nor grown, if we hadn’t invaded in the first place. And Iran, when they inevitably control Iraq, will eliminate AQ. In addition, if Iran is able to provide the security that the present government in Iraq and ourselves have been totally unable to do, I suspect the civil war will end very quickly.
Iraq is 60%+ Shia; Saddam had driven many Shia Iraqis into Iran; they won in a free election with tremedous turn out.
I strongly doubt that the Iraqi people realized that they were essentially voting in an Iran-backed government when they voted. (Remember the 8-year war?) I feel very sorry for those people. They expected better and got far less. Let’s also remember that such a “free election” would never have stood if the U.S. had been opposed to this leadership. Hamas comes to mind.
Do we know this? I read this a lot. I also read a lot about the Taliban getting their assess handed to them in pitched battles fairly often. I would call Afghanistan murky, but “degenerating by the day” a bit of an exageration.
Read more. The situation in Afghanistan is a good deal more than “murky.”
A seperate issue, but yes, Waziristan is the nexus of AQ/Taliban. We could take every guy in Iraq and put them in Afghanistan, and unless we are willing to cross that border OBL would still be safe there.
I don’t totally disagree with you on this one. But I would point out that our failure against OBL was directly due to our pulling our forces, energy and commitment out of Afghanistan, in addition to a misplaced loyalty and support of Musharraf.
Over the weekend, the Mahdi army fought the Iraqi Army to a standstill and only when US airpower got involved did Sadr tell them to pack it in. Had we not been there to help out, Basra would in all likelihood be Iraq’s version of the Gaza strip.
This is an inevitable situation, and is a great example of our intervention in what is a struggle for political power. This is not the U.S.’ fight. Iraq is a sovereign nation (supposedly) and these issues will be resolved. Whether through violence or political accomodation is up to THEM.
You didn’t respond to this last statement: “Lest we forget, OBL was born and bred in Saudi Arabia, and most of the 911 terrorists were Saudis. Interesting that Saudi Arabia got the free pass, isn’t it?”
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:55 pmimpeachcheneythenbush Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
You didn’t respond to this last statement: “Lest we forget, OBL was born and bred in Saudi Arabia, and most of the 911 terrorists were Saudis. Interesting that Saudi Arabia got the free pass, isn’t it?”
I have discussed the Saudi situation in other posts. In a nutshell, SA is the birthplace of Wahhabism, so it makes sense AQ Wahhabists would be born there but they hate the Royal Family as much or more than they hate us. The government of SA revoked OBL’s citizenship years ago. Osama and his gang represent the Royal Family the same way Tim McVeigh represents the US.
But most important of all, SA is the keeper of Mecca and Medina. We spurred Muslim hatred of us when we had troops there protecting SA from Saddam. The fanatical hatred we would bring about by any attempt at so much as looking cross eyed at the Saudis from the entire Muslim world would give us universal Jihad which we don’t want to contemplate.
Add to that their oil, their holding of US debt…they are untouchable and they know it.
Solar/wind/geothermal any old decade would be swell. Then we could show the Mid East the same deep concern we have shown Darfur and Rwanda. That sounds harsh, I know, but if we aren’t going to use force we have got to remove the single item that forces us to care.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:11 pmimpeachcheneythenbush Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Do we know this? I read this a lot. I also read a lot about the Taliban getting their assess handed to them in pitched battles fairly often. I would call Afghanistan murky, but “degenerating by the day” a bit of an exageration.
Read more. The situation in Afghanistan is a good deal more than “murky.”
It is a very imprecise metric, subject to all kinds of differing interpretation, but here is the Google Boxscore on Afghanistan:
“Progress in Afghanistan” = 711,000 hits
“Military Progress in Afghanistan” = 1,820,000
“Failure in Afghanistan” = 646,000 hits
“Military Failure in Afghanistan” = 1,760,000
BTW, I responded to your point on SA - how about the idea that pulling out of Afghanistan would work great since it is obviously the smart thing to do in Iraq?
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:18 pmimpeachcheneythenbush Says: AQ in Mesopotamia was a home-grown group of Sunni, which was joined by the larger organization out of Afghanistan. They wouldn’t have been there, nor grown, if we hadn’t invaded in the first place.
Actually, al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is the rechristening of Ansar al Islam (Partisans of Islam). They were a radical Sunni Islamist terror organization which operated in Northern Iraq along the border region with Iran from around 2001 until we invaded Iraq in 2003.
During the pre-invasion years we more or less afforded them protection from Saddam (whom they detested for his secular government) because they were based in the Northern No-Fly Zone, patrolled by US fighter jets. They were also protected from the Kurdish peshmerga, whom they also opposed, by Iranian artillery just across the border from their stronghold.
After the US invasion and the collapse of the Baathist regime Ansar, along with their leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (remember him?), moved south and commenced insurgent operations against US and coalition forces. After a while al-Zarqawi received the support of Usama bin Laden and renamed his organization al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:19 pmimpeachcheneythenbush Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
The bottom line is that they are continuing to push the vision of the U.S. as Empire. We currently have 700 aknowledged U.S. bases on this planet, with an additional 300 unacknowledged bases. Check this out:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ index.php?context=va&aid=5564
Exactly. All these wingnuts, including McShrub, justifying staying in Iraq for 100 years are just reinforcing what progressives have been saying all along: the US is an imperial power, constantly trying to force our will against the rest of the world. I just heard on CNN that the generals in Afghanistan are begging for more troops to quell the resurgent violence there, but were refused because of the number of troops in Iraq.
Thanks, Shrub for devastating our Armed Forces, as well as our Constitution, economy and US prestige worldwide.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:27 pm#105 - Keltoi - I agree with some of what you say about SA, but would also like to point out to your that the Royal family also largely fund the Wahhabi schools. They also send vast amounts of funds into Iraq to fund the Sunni Iraqi insurgency.
The metrics you provided for Afghanistan are indeed imprecise…to the extreme. As far as pulling out of Afghanistan being a great idea, since pulling out of Iraq is the “smart” thing to do…no. Afghanistan was, and still is, the linchpin when it comes to AQ. Sadly, I’m not sure that battle hasn’t also been lost. Certainly, the resurgence of the Taliban in that country is a net loss to the ordinary Afghani. When the government of Karzai only controls Kabul, I would say that there’s been more than a significant failure here.
The bottom line here is that it’s been a tragedy for all involved.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:45 pmboreas Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Impressive!
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:47 pmwoodguy Says: I just heard on CNN that the generals in Afghanistan are begging for more troops to quell the resurgent violence there, but were refused because of the number of troops in Iraq.
Don’t know about that but I do know that the Bushbaby is in Romania right now at the NATO summit and he asked the NATO member states to send more troops to Afghanistan.
Ever the diplomat, here’s how he “asked”: “We expect our NATO allies to shoulder the burden necessary to succeed.”
Arrogant little twit!
Several new states could be added to NATO this week. How much you wanna bet Bush is trying to condition US approval on the new states, Albania, Macedonia and Croatia, agreeing to send troops to Afghanistan?
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:49 pmLIEberman was thinking about the Revolutionary War. His near-term memory seems to fade after then.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:46 pm