I started a site and just started getting traffic to it because I want to know what the general publics opinions are on how they would put and end this war. IMHO.... to many people seem the have the cut an run mentality ... (cowards i say... most of them ) I'm from the US ... well educated, prior military and yet I still don't believe there is a Clean exit. more troops? US troops only for training Iraqis? Turn tail and run? See signature for my site.. read what they are posting there ..(1 day old) I'm expecting a better response here.
I believe it's on the right track. Storm through Baghdad along with Iraqi forces to give them training/experience. Secure it, as was done in Fallujah. Begin turning over to the Iraqis. Start bringing troops home. Contingencies of special operations remain over the next six to twelve months for assistance. Additional units remain/rotate for training Iraqis until more are ready. Unfortunately, I also believe it really won't matter much how successful it will be...the media will portray any/everything as a failure (with the exception of Fox and some smaller newspapers) who will give both sides of the story. They should consider booting out the Associated (with terrorists) Press, who mainly sit in the safety of the Green Zone while hiring (often unknown and enemies) to go out and cover stories for them. As well, just kick them all out. Bring in some honest reporters who will give both sides of the story. Journalists who don't sit behind the safety of the people they sit and bash day in and day out, and embed with units, often tend to give a completely different perspective of the war and what takes place. Still, the US liberal media has so much hatred for Bush, they would rather sell our country out with biased reporting, then to even hint that something is going well. Whether it's the war in Iraq, the economy, unemployment or anything else.
Ultimately what are we trying to accomplish? I would say I understand and at one time I thought I did but I'm not sure if I do any longer.. and when I figure that out then maybe I could give an opinion on what I would do.
I agree with GTech. The media didn't portray the war acurately from the start and they will do everything in their power to sabotage any good thing that happens. If the media had acted the same way in WWII, they would have been lined up and shot. I think the key is to secure Bagdad and make that the safest place in Iraq. It's a big task, but if that can be accomplished, it will be much easier to deal with smaller problems in outlying areas. But this is a war. You can't go in with whistles and candy and expect to fix the problems. The best solution may have to be brutal and ruthless. The real problem there today has to do with the nature of Mideast Muslims. They have been killing each other since Muhammad died, and it is not likely to stop on its own. Saddam accomplished relative peace through brutal oppression. Unfortunately, it may be the only thing that works with people who have violence for each other so deeply ingrained. There was a lesson to be learned in Viet Nam that has not sunk in. You can't allow politicians to run a war and expect to win. As in WWII, you need to unfetter the generals and let them do what they were trained to do without restrictions.
I also agree...the media is much to blame for what is going on...I have seen countless reporters follow the "insurgents" (formerly known to the media as islamic terrorists) around, but then not follow the troops...they would rather show a video of an IED going off than the good work that the troops are doing. I will get off my soapbox for now, because I know the USA is and will continue to win.
I have read from all sides. One thing is clear is that there is no simple solution nor is there a simple solution where America eases its troops out of danger and IMPROVES its position in the middle east. My personal take on this war is that we aren't simply fighting terrorists or a terrorist stronghold. Currently Americans are getting killed fighting Shiite nationalists and Sunni nationalists who are fighting one another. I'd bet that we are in conflict with something like 80% nationalists who want us out and 20% some kind of Al-Queda terrorist connection- maybe more maybe less--but the terrorist connection is low relative to the violence between two warring factions. Personally, I feel Shiite radicals have shown themselves to have a dangerous anti-American/kill American philosophy for decades now. To date during the last 3 years American forces have not vigorously confronted them. Using the increased troops in Baghdad should theoretically involve confronting the Sadr Shiite militia. On the other hand it merely escalates an already cr@ppy situation that does nothing to advance American and Western concerns. Wish I had an easy answer to all this. I don't see how any scenario advances American security or interests in the long or short term.
The main problem is not in Iraq but in USA view of the world. USA is trying to implement a gun boat empire building strategy in the beginning of 21st century while that strategy belonged to the end of 19th and beginning of 20th century. Most of second half of 20th century is a witness to the failures of such strategy. In today's world is not possible to control a country and be a government in a foreign country by the powers of gun boats. Therefore there is a need for a real government. A government is not just electing a puppet as a president or prime minister but it has to come out as a controlling power from the country's internal power struggle, otherwise there will be always a need for the gun boats and the internal struggle in form of civil war or other ways will continue. The best way in Iraq is to try establish a real democracy and be a friend to who ever that comes to power. Despite USA's tarnished image and U.S. government propaganda, USA is still liked in most part of the world, if they decide to do what they are best at, in trade section and sell coca-cola, Mc Donald, American movies, Rock & Roll, Computers,... instead of trying to rob everything which is not nailed down. This strategy will serve America, it's people and the majority of U.S. corporations while the gun boat strategy will be beneficial to few companies and the country has to pay the cost.
Gworld, I agree but we are doing no different then what the roman empire did way back then. One day a country(would like it to be us) will step up and change this and then it will become a true democracy, not one hidden behind the cloak of something else. Right now i dont see any country stepping in that direction . My feel is that the nanotech age could present civilization with the opportunity for change because greed and acquiring power will be a thing of the past.
How many of you agree with D16man and think that the media is at least partly to blame for the state of this war. I think CNN is trash and only reports what supports their views. I've been listening to BBC on my sat radio but you almost need to listen to each of the news sources and drawl your own conclusions.. Sad.. very sad...
It is sad...whats more sad is that I think alot of (but not all) the media sees this as a personal vindeta against bush...Bush has made them wrong in two presidential elections now...all media predicted Bush would lose and dems would win, Bush proved them wrong..now they try to settle the score.
There's no doubt the media, like in Vietnam, is playing their role here. With the Associated (with terrorists) Press' scandal about Jamil Hussein unfolding, Reuter's outrageously biased coverage, the BBC admitting they are biased, CNN knowingly airing terrorist propaganda, the NYTimes committing treason like it was going out of style by reporting on a secret legal program with congressional oversight and later admitted it was wrong to do so. Newsweek and their fake quran story, CBS with Rathergage, NBC and ABC preaching doom and gloom every night. I can't imagine anyone not seeing what the media does, day in and day out. They made the same mistake in Vietnam. General Giap (Commander of the North Vietnamese Army) noted in his book he was utterly surprised that the US decided to pull out of Vietnam. Said he knew his Army was defeated and was ready to surrender, but that it was groups like Kerry's VVAW that actually helped deliver the win for them. Thanks, Jawn Carry! Some things never change. Democrats are like the French. Their official policy is "surrender." Oddly enough, it was democrats calling for war with Iraq LONG before Bush ever got in office. As was it them also, calling for war when the time came. They used Bush to do the dirty work they had long been seeking, and now criticize him for doing what they wanted in the first place.
Don't forget the photoshopped pics in Reuters...and also the whole "I voted against it before I voted for it but what I actually voted for was a cut in funding for our troops" saga...
Yeah, those Reuters photos and coverage was just beyond belief. Kerry had more positions on Iraq than Paris Hilton has in bed. And that's a lot!