Why did we go into Iraq?

[tw]

Originally Posted by warch

We're way into Iraq. What is our current mission statement, today? How do strategically succeed, now? What would success look like? What kind of Iraq is acceptable? How do we get there? You cannot kill them all. You might think you can, but there are always more. How do you best manage terror at home and around the world?

One need only go back to history to answer your question. Currently the same answer is found in Nigeria, Congo, and Haiti. There is no solution until the people there want a solution. Brent Scowcroft (who so often reflects the viewpoint of George Sr) basically stated what may be necessary - civil war. One very possible solution is total withdrawl. Either they will suddenly find no enemy (Americans), or the resulting civil war (just like in Lebanon) is necessary for the people to want peace. Also, as in Lebanon, the neighboring powers successfully brought about the desired end of violence. An Iraqi solution is better found in Arab states - and not in American occupation that even requires Green zones.

The current American attitude of military might solving political problems is historically wrong. They must 'want' a solution. We cannot impose it. Currently America is trying to impose a solution on Iraq. It will not happen as demonstrated by how Iraq is slowly falling into the same pattern of Vietnam.

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. There comes a time (even in business), that a threshold is defined. Sometimes the only solution is bankruptcy. Funny thing about bankruptcy. It suddenly creates solutions (ie Chrysler, NY City, Ford, etc) where others did not have the balls to face facts. We should have a timetable that says, "after this point we leave no matter what". But that would require a president with balls; not one with political agendas. Notice how brutal and realistic my thinking is - because it has contempt for both left and right wing rhetoric. If you want a solution, your thinking better be that ruthless. Most of us are not ready to be so realistic. We even deny those lessons of history; never even bothered to read the Pentagon Papers.