Shouldn't we have a concensus on our strategy for the war in Iraq?

Question

We're there, we all want to win, and no serious Democrat wants to bring all of the soldiers home today, it would be impossible.
We need to put an end to Bush's position as ultimate "decider" on all things in Iraq, and get a concensus opinion that the entire country can get behind. Baker/Hamilton made the suggestion of talking with Syria and Iran, why was that never looked into? Wouldn't our presence in Iraq be more tolerable if we made it known to the Iraqi people that we have no plans for a permanent presence in Iraq, and discontinued the construction of permanent military bases? Why not flesh out a good plan that utilizes troops to a full potential before throwing them into the fire as part of an escalation? Bush has the opportunity to be the uniter that he said he was, but instead plays the role of the stubborn child once again.

We can't bring the troops home today, I think you know that Freaky. If you think it would work out alright if we did, you're either very irresponsible and don't care about the Iraqis or you don't have enough common sense to see what would happen.

/sigh
Well, I tried to ask a serious question, just got more of the "Impeach Bush!" vs. "Libs are terrorist cut and runners!" shouting match.

I know what you're saying, freaky, but if we would leave today, the Sunnis would be curbstomped in a series of atrocities that would make Saddam look like an angel. Revenge is just too irresistable a temptation for the Shi'ia to resist.

Bo, I'm not a defeatist. We are losing the war in Iraq. Almost every general who comes out of there has said it. We need a winning strategy. There have been ideas laid out, but Bush doesn't want to take them seriously.

Answer 1

You have a good Idea, and a well intentioned idea, but the policy in Iraq or any war for that matter cannot succeed if it is decided by a legislature. I am sad to say that, and hate too, I would probably bash anyone who did say it. It is the truth though, no legislature can run a war because there are always too much bickering, you can't take one decisive stand on an issue, there would be too much switching of policy (hence the Congress's stand on Iraq now, if you can call it a stand). If the policy fails the President should be held accountable, but he needs to be allowed to do his job as pointed out in the constitution. A challenge you to name any one time that a Legislature has successfully run a war. I can't think of any, During the American Civil War,First and Second World Wars, Abe Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR where virtually war time dictators. Metaphorically speaking of course because they would never took the title up, or the actual position, but they had that kind of policy making power. In times of War the Roman Senate and Athenian Assemblies would appoint a Dictator. Now I'm not advocating such a thing in the U.S., I think it is right that we hold our President accountable for his policies, and if he fails we throw him out in the next election, but if he doesn't do anything illegal, or harming the public good, then he needs to be allowed to his constitutionally appointed job as commander in chief of the armed forces. The use of force was authorized by the United States Congress, and holds the legal weight of a declaration of war.

Answer 2

Boogity, we aren't losing. I have spent the last two days with city councils around Baghdad. They are progressing, want our help, and are working more independantly than at anytime in the last three years.

Believe it or not, the American people's voice IS being heard. We want you to have a voice but we don't want you to tell us how to fight the war. That's not the House's or Senate's job. That's the job of the Commanders on the ground. We lost Viet Nam because politicians decided to get involved.

This war is taking time. We are seeing results from our actions and they're good.

As far as engaging Iran and Syria, that's a farce. They only want to destroy this country not help. Our presence in Iraq IS tolerable to the regular Iraqi. They are THANKFUL for us to be here. It's the insurgents and hardliners who want us out and they are NOT the majority. Just the majority of what you hear on the media. Also, permanent basing is not an issue with the regular Iraqi. They don't mind and even want us to stick around and be apart of them.

When it comes to the stubborn child, I honestly think that Bush/Pelosi/Murtha all share some of that responsibility.

Answer 3

I. Bush is the "decider" because that is an enumerated power according to the constitution. He is the Commander In Chief. Congress gave him authorization.

II. A consensus would likely never be reached. Instead, we would grow old and die during the debate. Also, the average intelligence drops as the size of any group grows. Translation: People are too stupid to produce solutions with a large-scale debate.

III. "Flesh out a good plan"? It sounds so simple! We could just invent a pill that makes people stop hating each other.

IV. We have tried talking to the Iranians and Syrians for years. Unfortunately, the only English phrases they know are "Destroy America!" and "Destroy Israel!" Oh, and "Death to the Infidels!"

Otherwise, it's a great idea.

Answer 4

We elect a president who will lead.
It's not a popularity contest and I'm sick to death of the defeatist attitude of so many Americans these days.

We never would have abolished slavery if the president had governed by consensus...because most Americans didn't care about slavery at the time.

The governments of Syria and Iran both oppress their own people, sponsor terrorism and have a HUGE stake in the outcome in Iraq. They know that whoever controls Iraq controls it's oil. And whether we like it or not, oil is power in the middle east. They know that if they control the oil coming out of Iraq it will give them the power to intimidate the entire region and the west. They want that power for selfish reasons...and you want to "talk" with these people?

When has "talking" or "bargaining" with a bully ever worked?

Too many people are letting their hatred of the Bush administration blind them to reason.

Answer 5

I really believe it would be better for the President and his staff to be in charge of concensus and strategy. It is not up to us everyday citizens, we're not the ones in charge nor the ones being kept informed. It's the President's job.

Have you considered running for President? The last one we had was informed also. He talked and smiled a lot but didn't get some things done that needed doing. Which type would you be more like?

Answer 6

well there are a couple of problems...

A. how do we stop the violence? some folks want revenge, as you say, and I don't know how we will stop them from getting it... flowers and good thoughts aren't going to cut it, and of course we can't kill them all...most are waiting for us to leave... so do you want to stay forever?

B. to have a consensus strategy, we would need a strategy... which we seem to lack...

I mean either way, we want to leave eventually, and when we do... how do we stop a civil war? I don't know and I don't think anyone does...

It seems everyone that supports the war just hopes it will go away on it's own... and I don't see decades of frustration just leaving...

Answer 7

America wants to bring the troops home today. Who cares what "serious Democrats" want - that's just a euphemism for a Democrat who has been kissing Bush's @** for six years.

EDIT: I think that you need to seriously challenge the mindset that says the United States is key to stability in the region. In my opinion, it is garbage, and the neo-conservative movement wants *instability* in the region. We are not fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq, we are feeding al-Qaeda in Iraq. I say we stop immediately and let the Iraqis and Iranians take care of al Qaeda.

EDIT: In my opinion, the source of the instability is the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Israel. With the U.S. out, Israel and Saudi Arabia are too weak to prevent Iran and Syria from working out a peaceful division in Iraq (like the one in Lebanon that ended their civil war). The Shia ARE crazy but the Iranians are not and they can control them.

By the way, good question!

Answer 8

A consensus? That's why we have a president.

Generals run wars not civilians. What do you know about running a war?

I was in the Viet Nam war and still know nothing about running a war. Why should the average joe have a say?

Answer 9

We had a consensus (remember the vote back in 2003...the one that Hillary is trying to claim she was deceived about???), but the "Cut and Runners" have thrown the whole thing under the bus and our nations' spine has collapsed. As far as I am concerned, Bush is the only one with a clear vision of how to win there. Everything else is just political grandstanding.

Answer 10

Pelosi and Reid are doing a masterful job. The republicans are being worn down one by one, and the ultimate battle has yet to come. As the old saying goes "Grab them by the balls, and their hearts and minds will follow".