Could there be more to the attacks than what we are hearing?

[volinbham]

I did say it may be the perception. I also realize that perceptions can be a person's reality.

Morality to me is in the holder not the beholder. How my actions or morality may be perceived is partially out of my control but it doesn't change my morality.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Well considering the people we are trying to democratize are the ones who decide if they are liberated or occupied, I'd say THEY are the ones who hold the weight in deciding the morality of this situation.

 

[J.Quest]

I wonder what would have happened if we had just gone in, kicked out Saddam, and then left? I think we'd then hear how the US came in like a sand storm, disrupted the status-quo, and then blew town leaving Iraq with no sense of direction. It really does seem to be a no-win situation. We should have left Iraq alone for the time being and dealt with the bigger fish, first. Knock out the big guy first and the little guys run. There was never any proof of AQ ties to Iraq, but there are to Iran, Syria and Saudi. It just makes no sense.

 

[J.Quest]

Well considering the people we are trying to democratize are the ones who decide if they are liberated or occupied, I'd say THEY are the ones who hold the weight in deciding the morality of this situation.

Yep, and oh, by the way folks, we'll be holding democratic elections downtown for officials whose roles you know nothing about and who you may have never even heard of...and if possible, take a back road and wear your bullet proof vest.

 

[OWB]

I wonder what would have happened if we had just gone in, kicked out Saddam, and then left? I think we'd then hear how the US came in like a sand storm, disrupted the status-quo, and then blew town leaving Iraq with no sense of direction. It really does seem to be a no-win situation. We should have left Iraq alone for the time being and dealt with the bigger fish, first. Knock out the big guy first and the little guys run. There was never any proof of AQ ties to Iraq, but there are to Iran, Syria and Saudi. It just makes no sense.

I wonder what would have happened if the Bush administration went in with a solid plan on how to get out without causing chaos?

I wouldn't call it a no win situation with the right people in charge of it. However, it IS a no win situation with W. To quote Bill Mahrer, "this was a very complicated surgery that required the most skilled doctor and we sent Dr. George W. Bush."

 

[therealUT]

Well considering the people we are trying to democratize are the ones who decide if they are liberated or occupied, I'd say THEY are the ones who hold the weight in deciding the morality of this situation.

It is tough to argue that you are not liberated while you are going to polling stations to vote. Also, very few Iraqi's are exposed to violence and barbarism on a daily basis. Most of the country has begun to rebuild and move on with their lives and the early stages of the new gov't.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Considering 99% voter participation was under Saddam, I'd say equating voting with liberation is a stretch. They've voted for many years. While choices are not given, they've all voted before.

A bulk of the population lives in cities, especially Baghdad. And since families are of a clan format, you could say a majority of the people experience violence on a consistent basis. Since violence has increased in Baghdad, the former safest area, more and more people who never experienced violence are now seeing it firsthand.

 

[therealUT]

I wonder what would have happened if the Bush administration went in with a solid plan on how to get out without causing chaos?

I wouldn't call it no win situation with the right people in charge of it. However, it IS a no win situation with W. To quote Bill Mahrer, "this was a very complicated surgery that required the most skilled doctor and we sent Dr. George W. Bush."

Considering that this is a new kind of enemy, an enemy that will not just take a new job in the new gov't and move on with their lives, defeated but hopeful for possibilities in the new gov't. There were plenty of exit strategies that worked in Panama, however, religious extremists want no part of our exit strategy. Hence, the strategy must change.

This is not an oversight by the Bush Administration, this has happened as a result of religious extremists funneling into the region. Very few Iraqi soldiers were preoccupied with any thoughts of Jihad, as Iraq has been a much more secular country for years. Yes, it was an Islamic country, however, it was Islamic like America is Christian. It was not a Syria or Iran. I believe the administration thought that the awesome swiftness and efficiency of our military movement from Kuwait straight through to Baghdad would deter any fighters from joining the fight. I also believe that the administration made a choice, IMO the right choice, to prioritize Baghdad and take it swiftly rather than lay siege to and cordon off any entrance from foreign fighters.

 

[therealUT]

Considering 99% voter participation was under Saddam, I'd say equating voting with liberation is a stretch. They've voted for many years. While choices are not given, they've all voted before.

A bulk of the population lives in cities, especially Baghdad. And since families are of a clan format, you could say a majority of the people experience violence on a consistent basis. Since violence has increased in Baghdad, the former safest area, more and more people who never experienced violence are now seeing it firsthand.

By trying to make the point that the Iraqi's were voting under Saddam (basically, Saddam or slow painful torture and death) is ridiculous and most likely very offensive to 90% of Iraqi Nationals.

The families are clan format, and many spend their whole lives living within 100 meters of everyone else in the clan. Also, there is violence in parts of Baghdad...not all of Baghdad. The bulk of the Iraqi population is not exposed to violence on a weekly, nor even monthly basis.

 

[OWB]

Considering that this is a new kind of enemy, an enemy that will not just take a new job in the new gov't and move on with their lives, defeated but hopeful for possibilities in the new gov't. There were plenty of exit strategies that worked in Panama, however, religious extremists want no part of our exit strategy. Hence, the strategy must change.

Ok, let me rephrase. It would have been nice if the Bush Administration had ANY kind of strategy for the "post war".. You have to have a strategy before you can change it.

 

[therealUT]

Ok, let me rephrase. It would have been nice if the Bush Administration had ANY kind of strategy for the "post war".. You have to have a strategy before you can change it.

I would have to believe they had a strategy, since George H.W. Bush presided over Operation Just Cause (great exit strategy) and Cheney and Colin Powell were also involved in the strategy of OJC. 14 years later and you honestly believe all of them forgot about the success of OJC, an operation in which they pre-emptively (for all intents and purposes) disposed of the leader of a sovereign nation, with Dignity Battallions and soldiers sworn to Noriega with their lives...The similarities were enormous, other than the size of the country being invaded, yet, you believe they all just forgot to include the exit plan, that worked so well in 1988???

 

[OWB]

I would have to believe they had a strategy, since George H.W. Bush presided over Operation Just Cause (great exit strategy) and Cheney and Colin Powell were also involved in the strategy of OJC. 14 years later and you honestly believe all of them forgot about the success of OJC, an operation in which they pre-emptively (for all intents and purposes) disposed of the leader of a sovereign nation, with Dignity Battallions and soldiers sworn to Noriega with their lives...The similarities were enormous, other than the size of the country being invaded, yet, you believe they all just forgot to include the exit plan, that worked so well in 1988???

Well, I think it's pretty obvious that they had no clue what to expect or do after toppling Saddam other than "Stay The Course"..whatever that is.

 

[therealUT]

Well, I think it's pretty obvious that they had no clue what to expect or do after toppling Saddam other than "Stay The Course"..whatever that is.

I believe they were as surprised as the rest of the world. After the Nazi's surrendered in WWII they walked down highways with weapons, past GI's, and went back home. There was an insurgency in some of the cities, mostly comprised of the SS, but for the most part there was no more violence. After the PDF surrendered in Panama, U.S. forces kept them armed and turned the cooperating soldiers into police forces in Panama City, Rio Hato, Colon, etc. There were some who fled into the jungles and fired pot shots at soldiers and civilians every once in a while, but that was it. That is what was expected post Saddam in Iraq. However, the Syrians, Iranians, Chechnyians, etc. sent scores of terrorists (on a mission to seek out their 70 virgins) into the country to destabilize Iraq. It could have been prevented, had we invaded and made our priority border security, then moved to slowly from the perimeter of Iraq into the cities...however, there are two very large reasons why a military planner would avoid this in the Iraq situation: all credible intelligence reports clearly stated Iraq had WMDs, therefore, the longer Saddam remains in power, the longer our troops are exposed to the risk; second, if we our troops were positioned between the Republican Guard in Baghdad and Fallujah, and the Syrian border on the west and the Iranian border on the east, and Saddam decided to ally with Iran and Syria we would be fighting battles on four fronts...That would leave to a more protracted war than the one we are in right now.

 

[CSpindizzy]

The bulk of the Iraqi population is not exposed to violence on a weekly, nor even monthly basis.

So NGO's, Iraqi government, and numerous other sources that say otherwise are lying?

Clans are far larger than just a few hundred meters. Clans fill entire regions. Saddam's clan covers quite a bit of north central Iraq for instance. People are traveling very far to look for work and food. They pass through areas that are in dangerous sectors all the time. Iraqis I've talked to are quite exposed to attacks, kidnappings, killings, etc. and live in fear of such things.

 

[therealUT]

So NGO's, Iraqi government, and numerous other sources that say otherwise are lying?

Clans are far larger than just a few hundred meters. Clans fill entire regions. Saddam's clan covers quite a bit of north central Iraq for instance. People are traveling very far to look for work and food. They pass through areas that are in dangerous sectors all the time. Iraqis I've talked to are quite exposed to attacks, kidnappings, killings, etc. and live in fear of such things.

Living in fear of, being exposed to, etc. is subjective. If one has not had to physically evade being taken hostage, or had to find cover due to an ongoing firefight, or had their property damaged by IEDs or other munitions, then they are not exposed, IMO. I believe that most in my profession would agree with my assessment, especially considering the fact that a soldier will receive a combat patch simply for serving in a declared "combat zone," however, a soldier will not receive a CIB or CAB unless they have actually engaged in combat.

 

[OWB]

However, the Syrians, Iranians, Chechnyians, etc. sent scores of terrorists (on a mission to seek out their 70 virgins) into the country to destabilize Iraq.

So you think that the Bush Administration never expected this to happen? They didn't have any foresight whatsoever on this? Bush himself has said, "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." If they didn't see that coming, then it just further backs up my statement that they were clueless going into this.

 

[therealUT]

So you think that the Bush Administration never expected this to happen? They didn't have any foresight whatsoever on this? Bush himself has said, "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." If they didn't see that coming, then it just further backs up my statement that they were clueless going into this.

I believe they thought it was a possibility, however, based previous experiences there was no precedent for what happened. Also, like I stated in previous posts, they had to set certain priorities for conducting the operation, securing the border was not high on that list, and rightfully so.

 

[J.Quest]

I think what they thought would happen is much like what thereal is saying (based on talks after the topple of Saddam). However, ranking officials admit they never saw this coming. Some officials blame the administration for sending to few troops to put down the resistance in the beginning and now it has and still is growing at an unprecidented rate. The best W can muster now is that we can't pull out now..imagine what will happen. He's basically correct. We can't pull out now BECAUSE of the mess we've made. That would be like my drywall guy coming over...putting an ugly texture on my walls despite the promise to my wife for pretty walls, dripping mud all over my new floors and then leaving w/o cleaning it up. I still have a complete mess that he made and the finished product sucks (Difference is...he ain't gettin paid till it's right).

 

[therealUT]

Basically, because the average soldier today gets wearisome after a year away from home, boo hoo, we will not be able to send enough troops to ever check every block in any future combat operation. There will always be some element that must be sacrificed for the now and taken on later. In OIF it just so happened to be leaving the border open so that enemy combatants may enter the country. In OEF it just so happened to be leaving the border open so that enemy combatants may leave the country.

I will let you know that military men are just as frustrated about this tradeoff as the rest of America is. However, for the time being, there is no way to continue to fill ranks with soldiers and at the same time deploy enough troops to completely lock down a foreign state.

 

[JonWard]