[tw]

Why is Iraq not yet acknowledged by every lurker here years ago? Facts were posted. Why so much denial? Maybe details will provide useful insight?

Morality on 1 Jan 2006
The insurgency is fueled only by one thing - American occupation. Conditions being so unstable that Iraq must even import oil. Conditions that will only worsen. This American occupation has made even more central Iraqi cities unsafe for Americans every year. It will only worsen as history demonstrated - be it Vietnam, Lebanon, or Somalia. Even noted by a BBC reporter who could not give his 'year end' summary report from an Iraqi city he could visit one year previous.

Morality on 26 Dec 2005
Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad and Gen George Casey are rumored to have been calling for an exit strategy from Iraq that may even call for a fixed withdrawal date. Obviously, putting a date on that withdrawal would completely undermine Iraq's growing insurgency. But George Jr has no interest in that solution. Options were posted previously. Either 500,000 troops for one year to end the insurgency, or a complete withdrawal which would undermine the insurgency. Leaving too few troops or taking out another 7000 is only a losing strategy.

However it is not about winning in Iraq. It is all about the popularity of George Jr. Iraq has always been secondary to George Jr who is more concerned with his legacy - ie. his Kennedy like 'Mission to Mars' and a place alongside Reagan.

... Leaving 100,000+ American troops only causes the insurgency (once called Al Qaeda by a lying president for self serving political reasons) causes this insurgency to grow exponentially. Too few troops only makes Iraq less stable; increases a probability of civil war. ...

Rumors say Khalizad and Casey have long been suggesting a strategic objective that provides an exit strategy. George Jr has no exit strategy - still has none. Nor, say some, does he want one.

... George Jr is only announcing insignificant troop reductions because George Jr's is worried about his popularity.

GWB's "Plan for Victory" on 30 Nov 2005
There are only two ways to get out of Iraq. Send in 1/2million to end it now. Or completely withdrawal so that Iraqis are forced settle things at the negotiation table - either by meeting up front or driven to the table by civil war. Civil war in Iraq remains a viable alternative the longer the US remains. Under the George Jr status quo plan, civil war becomes a more likely possibility every year. The Iraqi military cannot grow as fast as the insurgency.

Trying to solve Iraq with too few American troops - 100,000+ - is a fool's solution. Either we are in or we are out. Only 100,000+ troops means the insurgency will grow until Civil War is inevitable.

Nuclear Iran is now the world's #1 problem posted by UT on 9 Aug 2005
Ah, but tw, it's your take on things that the US is losing the war in Iraq.

Why were others denying it even only one year ago?

Understanding terrorism on 6 Aug 2005
Meanwhile, history demonstrates that when democracy is pushed down their throats, bad things like Civil War occur. Brent Scowcroft (a closest friend of George Sr) was discussing this as a real possibility maybe one year ago. Now reporters in the 'field' are reporting civil war as a more likely consideration with each month.

Why did we go into Iraq? on 16 Jun 2005
Warch - your question was the exact same question we asked in Vietnam. What was the answer? Admit defeat? The American strategic objective in Vietnam was flawed - could not work. If you think the status quo is Iraq is solving the problem, well then explain why safe cities such as Mosul and Kirkuk are even failing into violence - just like in Vietnam.

First ask - what really is our strategic objective? To impose a government, or to setup a puppet government? Again, civil war may be necessary so that Iraqis can agree they want a common government. One cannot honestly anwer when one blindly believes America has provided freedom. Listen to Iraqis. They did not like Saddam. But most Iraqis had more freedoms back then. They had freedom of movement. They had electricity and water. Outside of rebel areas, Iraqis were not dying so routinely. All part of a country that cannot even agree yet on what it wants. Even the Kurds were doing business with Saddam back then. It was not as bad as poltical extremists in America would have us believe - just like in the days of Vietnam.

I don't find the 'politically incorrect' solution of total withdrawl that wrong. Others who Iraqis trust may then be so shocked as to move in - to provide a real solution as Syria did in Lebanon. At some point, Americans must admit the status quo is not making things better. And just like in Vietnam, the American public perception was otherwise.

Are you ready for 20 years in Iraq? If denying reality as Nixon did in Vietnam, then expect Americans to be dying in Iraq for decades - followed by a country not that friendly to Americans.

A realistic strategic objective would also make an exit strategy obvious. Where is the exit strategy? None existed because there was no strategic thinking by poltical extremists. None currently exists.

Remember how so many here refused to acknowledge that Iraq was more dangerous then? Well now it is even more dangerous than more danagerous. This from an Iraq citizen when things were so much safer.

BBC's One Day in Iraq on 7 Jun 2005
This war and the events leading to it have been such a mess that the self congratulating excuse of removal of Saddam is nothing more than a laughable lame attempt.

100,000 Iraqi Civilians have died in current war on 18 May 2005
According to those UN numbers, we are killing Iraqi civilians at about the same rate per year that Saddam was. But clearly that is better because Americans are more moral about causing civilian deaths. ...

Question remains: how many more will die if Iraq breaks down into civil war? History teaches that American occupation (complete with a puppet government) will be required for up to 10 years. No problem. America wants to be the world's policeman. The current Iraqi government can only exist in Green Zones protected by the US military. Why is their own country so dangerous even for their own government? Iraq has never been a more dangerous place - thanks to America.

Good Morning, VietNam on 9 Jan 2005
Those estimates of 20,000 insurgents is now at about 40,000 full time insurgents and about 160,000 part time insurgents. Increases also seen in VietNam.

Mosul demonstrates the problem. When he could not get support from the Bremmer bureaucracy, the 101st Airborne General started a program much like the British. His soldiers went out to find and work with the people. They all but stole money from the Bremmer 'we are the experts' bureaucracy (George Jr's chosen one) to get reconstruction going. Money from Bremmer's people was all but non-existent. Bremmer's people never even bothered to put staff in Mosul. Relations in Mosul were some of the best. Now even Mosul is a center of the insurgency.

Good Morning, VietNam on 11 Jan 2005
Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft were National Security Advisors for Presidents Ford, Carter, and Bush Sr. They recently defined what to prepare for in Iraq. Gen Scowcroft's comments are especially interesting since he is also a closest friend and trusted advisor to Bush Sr.

What follows are exact quotes from Brzezinski and Scowcroft as they predict a Civil War. Notice what was so emotionally unacceptable to so many in The Cellar back then is now defacto reality.

That would get America out of Iraq. A resulting Civil War could then could be blamed on Iraqis. Like Vietnam, it is how to get out and claim what follows is not America's fault.

Do you FEEL safer? on 27 Oct 2004
Important was that the US would have a 'honeymoon' to get the country working again. If not accomplished in that honeymoon period, then only bad things would happen in-country. The George Jr administration refused to plan for the peace - so the war never ended. But then even Sze Tzu taught that in 500 BC.

Rumsfeld somehow felt that 50,000 troops all put in Baghdad would be sufficient to create peace in a 6,500,000 city. Somehow, with less men than the NYPD, he would secure all of Iraq (his logic was that obviously flawed). Somehow if 50,000 US troops occupied only Baghdad, then peace and prosperity would break out all over Iraq. As for looting nationwide, Rumsfeld complains that one boy repeatedly shown looting a vase does not constitute nationwide looting. He was that much removed from reality because his political agenda was more important.

So out of touch were the neo-cons that they disbanded the Iraqi Army and Police even as nationwide disorder continued. Even in the Cellar, many outrightly denied it was that bad - the press must be liars. Extremist rhetoric remains despite reality. Did he really think 50,000 would maintain law and order?

[continued in next post]