What are we still doing in Iraq?

Question

A series of powerful car bomb attacks left 233 people dead and scores injured in Baghdad today--undermining Bush's plan to restore order to the beleagured capital.

Naturally, the military is quick to accuse Al-Qaeda of perpetrating such attacks to gain the sympathy of the Iraqis and the American people, but 99% of the time, the attacks are confirmed the next day to be carried out by the Sunni-led insurgency.

But what I learned last night on the next "America at a Crossroads" on PBS just gave me cold CHILLS.

All this time, I had been rallying for a withdrawal of American troops--hinged on the idea that this would calm down the fighting and dispose of the radical Islamic groups source of angst and power.

But I don't even *think* that we can withdrawal AT ALL. Not because we should, or we can't, but because we won't BE ABLE TO.

(More follows below.)

It breaks down like this: Bush went in with the hot-headed idea that we could somehow "transform" Iraq into a shining model of democracy--which would be a prime example of American statesmanship--and everyone would follow the Iraqis lead, right?

WRONG.

Not only did we (the United States) create a power vaccuum which was immediately filled by insurgents, and some terrorist cells, but we also screwed up the "democracy" part as well--not even having a FULL understanding of the people THEMSELVES.

It took me THIS LONG to just figure out what we actually PROPPED UP in Iraq, compared to what the Bush administration has been crowing about since Day 1.

It's not a DEMOCRATIC government at ALL. It's a theologically-instituted powerbase--where loyalties are sworn in like the NY mafia, and gangs, militias and what have you, have sworn loyalties to their local sheiks, imams, religious leaders, and so on.

BUT NOT TO THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT!

None of these people (not even Malaki) is the least bit INTERESTED in a unified government--let alone a UNIFIED Iraq! They don't care about the people or the country!

If they did, they would've made a helluva lot more progress in getting things off the ground--by making a CONCENTRATED effort to institute these benchmarks which the Democrats and Bush want Malaki to meet.

BUT HE WON'T.

His position is secured only because of Moktada al-Sadr. And Sadr is not just a spiritual leader. He is the equivalent to a New York City mob boss--where he controls a good sized portion of Iraq, where he has his own personal army (and more), and where HE calls the shots.

Without his support, Malaki is nothing. Just a puppet.

This is where Iraqi loyalties are actually born. Not through democracy, but through BLOOD TIES.

Most of these security forces which Bush has banked on to secure Iraq and tamp down the insurgency?

ISN'T EVEN LOYAL TO THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT!

In fact, they aren't even the least bit interested in unifying the country or spreading democracy.

Their loyalties are with their communities, their leaders, and anyone who would support them. But they aren't under the sway of the Iraqi government.

And the police? They aren't even interested in keeping the peace. Not only do they lack the training and support to carry out such basic duties, but they've never encountered such violence and destruction before.

So a great many of them have switched sides--some under the false guise that they are actually doing something in the eyes of the coalition. But in reality, many of the police force is under the control of Al-Sadr. (At least 10,000).

So when his people quit Malaki's government, those men went with him.

Overall, we haven't even met a single goal in this four-year war in Iraq.

All we've done is create a LAWLESS frontier where the local mob bosses are in control of their respective territories, and everyone involved has ties to the mafia.

And that is ESSENTIALLY what we've gone and done.

If you think about this war from an outsider's POV, you would see that I'm right.

Think about everything which has gone down WRONG and think about what we were SUPPOSED to do--but hasn't even gotten started or even initiated:

No true democracy.

No stability.

No economic foundation.

No military to speak of.

No unified government.

No real elections. (If you count what we have is more of a sham than anything else...?)

No meetings between both sides to reconcile their differences.

It's just an all out turf war between Sunni and Shia! And the local Iraqi population isn't sticking AROUND to find out who will this one.

Answer 1

Being a retired military man again I say we are not
winning the war because our troops are trained to
fight in jungles and deserts. City fighting is not our
speciality. Our troops will not be withdrawn be-
cause there is still not a strategy by our high paid
president and high paid generals as they do not
know what to do. Knowing the government in
america they are giving the iraqi military very
minimal equipment to fight the war and very
limited training, why so that they have an excuse
to stay there. It's a shame that more and more
american lives are lost every day an more
and more lives of innocent people but Bush is to
blame as he started it and to use the excuse that
we are fighting terroism is absurd.

Answer 2

No Goals accomplished. That's a lie.

I haven't heard or seen of any attacks on American Soil.

Have you?

The goal is to fight terrorism. Along those same lines establishing a government in Iraq is the first step. Allowing them to build a Military and armed forces that can actually protect it's country is the next. THEN they can fight, and we can withdrawl.

My opinion is stop watching the media(Fox, MSNBC, CNN...) ALL OF THEM. Just use common sense. It is very easy for the media to put a spin on things, to make you think the way they want you to.

I say take ALL the media out of Iraq and let the Armed Forces do what they do best.

Answer 3

I think our troops should surround Baghdad and keep all the Iraquis in there till they all kill each other. Then we can come home.
I can't figure out why our guys can't go and get the bad guys and get rid of them.
I thought that is what war is all about, killing the bad guys and then getting out.
If some civilians get killed that's too bad they should have gotten out of that place before the war started anyway if they value their life.

Answer 4

Thats more of a stament than a question But I still agree with you

Answer 5

Good Question. I think we should bring our boys (and girls) home!