Some Honesty?

Question

I can't speak for the rest of the anti-Iraqi war Liberals.. but I can say one of my biggest gripes is that they aren't doing enough for themselves.. if 12 million voted and only a hand-full by comparison are the violent ones then they have more than enough peaceful people to take care of their problems.. so why aren't they? the military and police are just as guilty of atrocities as anyone else in the nation... so if they aren't willing to do more for themselves then why are we there? Honestly.. if I felt they WERE doing more for themselves I wouldn't have a problem sending troops to help.

assuming they wanted our help.


anyway, do you think they are doing enough for themselves?

lol, Pip is an unfortunate nickname that stuck due to South Park and a load of crazy college friends at that time.. my name is Phillip.

not sure what happened to Michele's answer :( but if someone on here reported it there was no reason for that.. pip is a bit of an odd nickname :P

Answer 1

Actually the best question / thought I have read from a self-proclaimed liberal on this site or any other. Actually I agree with you on your point 100%. Why are the Iraqis not standing up for themselves in greater numbers? What is taking them so long? I am 100% behind the troop surge (mostly because that is what military commanders want), but man that decision sure would be easier if the Iraqis were rebelling against the terror in their own country. The hardest part of my support decision for Iraq is boiling down to I am deeply convinced it will get worse if we leave. I cannot support "worse" no matter how "bad" it appears.

Can't speak for the rest of the conservatives, but that is my 2 cents.

PS It did not hurt or cause any discomfort to agree with you.

Answer 2

It's a guerrilla war. The insurgents are receiving extensive support from the two largest nations bordering Iraq. This only means that it is a difficult problem, not an insoluble one. So, to the question, can the central Iraqi government win, I say yes.

Will the Iraqi government fail to bring about a peaceful state through factionalism or incompetence. Well, yes they might. So you have a valid point in that. The question, I feel , then should be at what point do we disengage. You feel we are already at that point. Considering the consequences of a failed Iraqi state, I am not.

There is headway being made. The Iraqi forces are growing in number and ability. There forces are mixed. They have ended the practice of using militia units en mass as army units. Also your statement that the national forces and police have as much blood on there hands as the insurgent is an exaggeration.

Will they be willing and capable to do the job. It seem possible, even likely. But I'll grant you, when we see it clearly as otherwise, yes we should then leave.

PS I am refreshed by your tone and willingness to honestly debate.

Answer 3

Unfortunately we get most of the news we know about what Iraq is doing for itself from the media, which does a very poor job of reporting anything about it at all.

I find that odd.

If you think that it isn't happening because you don't read about it or see it on news television, I can understand why you might feel that it isn't happening.

That would be an error in observation though.

Keep in mind that during the invasion, the US kicked the heck out of Iraq. There is a tremendous amount of rebuilding that is necessary.

Add to this that this country has been under rule of Sadam for decades and you have an entire social mind set that also must be addressed and freed. Perhaps this is the biggest part of the problem.

It isn't a simple matter of standing a soldier up, putting a uniform on him and give him a rifle and some rounds and then say the job is done.

There is an entire government that needs to get on its own feet and have the environment where they can do that work. We are providing that space and time for that to be done.

If you think that a military or police force is something that can be brought into existance at a level of competency necessary to this job in such a short period of time, you are not as well informed as to what it takes to accomplish that as you should be.

This is a HUGE job and isn't about how many IEDs kill how many Iraqis or Americans.

It is about doing what is necessary to give this new nation the best chance to survive when we do pull out. Otherwise, to pull out and see the nation fall because we didn't do what was needed would be to waste everything we have invested there in terms of money, material and most of all the sacrifice of our armed forces.

It is fine to have urgency in the process and I am 100% in agreement with you there. Urgency must be tempered with reality though if ultimate success is to be achieved.

Answer 4

Well, in a ideal situation I would have to agree with your opinion. The issue is that we aren't just having to deal with Iraqis over there. Syria and Iran have a vested interest that Iraq stay unstable, atleast until we leave. A stablized Iraq wouldn't bode well for them, since their people would get to see first hand on the freedoms that come with a democratic society.

Iran's government is already losing its control as the youth educate themselves and it is only a matter of time before they themselves get overthrown. Their only hope is that they can keep their people, and other countries, thinking that the US (and our government style) is evil. Once Iraq can protect itself (not from just some insurgents here and there but from outside sources looking to take over), then we can look to instill some timetables to meet.

At the very least, maybe we should give them a deadline. Not as one to pull out, but one in which we will double or triple our forces there. Not saying this is the answer, just an idea is all.

Answer 5

The fact is that the Mideast has been at war for more years than I can remember and for more years than I've been alive. Saddam Hussein, despite all the bad things we've heard about him, did what he needed to do to keep order in Iraq and he did a pretty good job, whether we agree or not. He kept the tribes in line and let them know that insurrection would not be tolerated. Because George W. Bush got sideways with Hussein, he had a personal vendetta, and true to his "I'm the Decider" ways, when he couldn't rule Hussein, he decided he would ruin him. He has proven that the United States has done more harm than good in Iraq. We made Saddam Hussein's alleged massacres look like child's play compared to the number of innocent civilians who have been killed in Iraq. Yes, they should be doing more for themselves. We don't belong there. We also need to understand that lots of our troops have been killed or wounded by "friendly fire". Therefore, we have lots of problems. Please don't shoot the messenger. Just do your research. If the Iraqis wanted us there and wanted a better way, they would be stopping the suicide bombers themselves and reporting them themselves.
Thank you for asking your question and thank you for inspiring people to think.

Answer 6

What, exactly, do you expect them to do?

The place is in a state of civil war. Most people don't want to die.

Someone suggested they turn in the terrorists. First, how do they know who they are? Second, most people don't want to die, or be the cause of their children's death as reprisal for turning someone in.

So many people seem to forget that we invaded and have nearly destroyed the country; they want to blame the victims here.

They did not ask us to come over, bomb them out of house and home, murder hundreds of thousands of their people, destroy their infrastructure, torture and rape tens of thousands of their people, make millions homeless, etc., etc., etc.

How can this be their fault?

Again, what is it you expect them to do?

They're living in a war zone. Their options are severely limited.

Answer 7

Absolutley not. That is the whole reason I support a timeline. That lets them know that they have a year and a half to get it together. If they are making progress, we can extend the deadline, but having an open-ended war gives them the impression that we have unlimited patience. You and I are on exactly the same page. I do not want us to fail, but think we should hold the Iraqis accountable.

Answer 8

That is PRECISELY my problem with it. We are providing the overwhelming majority of their security and paying for ALL of it, and worse, our President refuses to mandate that they start to take it over any time in the foreseeable future. It's time to stop protecting them and make them start to protect themselves. They've had the benefit of four years of training by the most skilled military force in the world, and they still haven't been able to do more than take over security in the most peaceful parts of Iraq. It's time to make them fend for themselves, kind of like the parents of a poorly-motivated college graduate. Push them out of the nest and force them to fly.

Answer 9

For the very same reason we allow 1.5 million U.S. soldiers to protect the 150 million non believers (cowards) located here in the U.S.

Our soldiers spend 24/7/364 defending people who refuse to give them money to buy bullets for their guns.

Answer 10

I happen to agree with you whole-heartedly. At some point we have to look at really who we are trying to help and realize they can't handle our help. However, we now have a responsibilty to those people that are trying to stabilize their country to help them do that. Where congress makes the mistake is putting a deadline on us and our military and not on the people of Iraq. If we told THEM you have 18 months to shape up or we are leaving instead of telling our military you have 18 months to fix it or leave as losers we could exit gracefully and truly claim we did all we could do.