Combat mission in Iraq over: what it comes down to at the end of the day

[Skybird]

The last combat brigade has left two weesk early, but not before today the combat mission officially has ended.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11135500

Fair, balanced. In general, I agree with it .

[SteamWake]

Yes even the headline is 'balanced' :doh:

[bradclark1]

There's going to be a civil war. The only question is when.

[AVGWarhawk]

The country is still in turmoil. The problems are long from over.

[SteamWake]

Just keep in mind tonight when Obama declares sucess that every single democrat railed against Bushs policys and to a man voted against the surge.

Even Barry himself sternly lectured that the policys would have little to no impact.

"This war is lost" [Harry Reid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyDOAmJYFFA

[Skybird]

Yes even the headline is 'balanced' :doh:Yes, fair and balanced. Fair in that the article is calm in tone, and balanced in that it reflects the key thoughts about Iraq objectively, imo.

Regarding Obama, Iraq is not what he can be held responsible for. The sin of starting the war, is Bush's, not Obama's. The war as planned by the neocons and defined in its objectives - politically by Wolfowitz et. al. and economically-opportunistically by Halliburton's fan-gang - has failed. The preparation and projections were catastrophically incompetent. Obama took the wise decision to leave behind a lost war that he was handed over by Bush.

Howevewr, I think 50,000 troops remain there for the coming years, and after that a further reduced military presence by the US still will be there for an undefined future to come.

[SteamWake]

"The sin of starting a war"

If I recall the democrats were all for at the time.

"I voted for this war before I voted against it" John Kerry

[Tribesman]

Just keep in mind tonight when Obama declares sucess that every single democrat railed against Bushs policys and to a man voted against the surge.

Even Barry himself sternly lectured that the policys would have little to no impact.

The policies didn't have much impact, the surge just gave a short respite from the inevitable.

"This war is lost"
It was lost many years ago.

"I voted for this war before I voted against it" John Kerry
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
You "fiscal conservatives" crack me up , thats when he voted for the war but changed his vote when the bill was amended so that the US taxpayer would get saddled with all the costs.
You should be applauding that stand but instead you don't even understand it beyond the meaningless soundbite you have been fed by the "liberal" media:rotfl2:

[Skybird]

"The sin of starting a war"

If I recall the democrats were all for at the time.

"I voted for this war before I voted against it" John Kerry
So what? It still was stupid. the Neocons developed the the idea, the house allowed itself to get talked into it, everybody went mad, and the media turned hysteric. It was a stupid decision to have that war nevertheless. And outside America, most people saw that it was stuoid from the beginning on. And Bush'S government was responsible for the way it was handled: incompetently, dilletantic, and without having a clue on what to do next and what to expect inside Iraq and after the field battle was over.

[Bilge_Rat]

So what? It still was stupid. the Neocons developed the the idea, the house allowed itself to get talked into it, everybody went mad, and the media turned hysteric. It was a stupid decision to have that war nevertheless. And outside America, most people saw that it was stuoid from the beginning on. And Bush'S government was responsible for the way it was handled: incompetently, dilletantic, and without having a clue on what to do next and what to expect inside Iraq and after the field battle was over.

Skybird, I am not sure if I see your "fair and balanced" viewpoint on display here.

The iraq war was a mistake, just like the invasion of Russia by Germany in 1941 was a mistake. Governments make mistakes, the US governemnt was not the first and certainly will not be the last.

[Skybird]

Skybird, I am not sure if I see your "fair and balanced" viewpoint on display here.

The iraq war was a mistake, just like the invasion of Russia by Germany in 1941 was a mistake. Governments make mistakes, the US governemnt was not the first and certainly will not be the last.
It was a mistake that was planned more than 10 years in advance, and put just into sleep mode during the Clinton years. ;) It would be unfair and unbalanced to not call it as what it is: a big stupidity caused by economic lobbying, old-boy-networks that linked political and private business parties in ways the public was and is getting deceived over, arrogance and imperial megalomania. Not to mention the lies that got constructed in order to excuse the war to the public. But the biggest sin was to not have poolanned properly. Tjhe warning were there, even from experts and staff inside US entities - and they got intentionally shut up by the adminstration who did anything it could to prevent proper planning. And an army who had a Donald Rumsfeld as defence minister, did not need any more enemies. but it got them nevertheless...

Anyway, that is history now and cannot be turned back. Iraq must clean up the mess that is left behind, and it is very likely to fail in that task. So, the general tone of that BBC article I agree with very much. Nobody has the right to claim that one could not have known. It could have been known, it could have been forseen - and it was known and forseen and warned of by many. even the timetable I predicted, roughly seems to get matched. I said in 2003 that roughly ten years would be taken by the US until they sneak out through the backdoor, frustrated and defeated in their populistically claimed mission objectives of "freedom and democracy and stability", and around 15 years before Iraq collapses and falls towards Iran completely. this guy named Sadr is growing and groinw in infouence, and Iranian presence in Iraq already is undeniably strong.

Was it worth it? No. Had even the claimed objectives been acchieved? No. The real, hidden objectives? To minor parts only - even Halliburton & Co. cannot be too happy with how it all ended.

"The End".

[Bilge_Rat]

Anyway, that is history now and cannot be turned back.

exactly. better to concentrate on the future. :yep:

[Ducimus]

There's going to be a civil war. The only question is when.

The country is still in turmoil. The problems are long from over.

The question I have is, why should this continue to be our problem? Our nation did what it could, but there is only so much that can be done, and how long are we supposed to bleed both money and blood there? What do we as a nation gain from that? I can't think of anything. IMO, The longer we stay there, the deeper the hole we dig for ourselves.

[gimpy117]

but why were we fighting the war in the first place? what gain were we getting from the conflict at this point? not much i can see. I say we should have left sooner.

It's up to the Iraqi's to solve their own problems. It's not fair to expect us to stand in the coirssfire becasue they hate each other

[MGR1]

The question I have is, why should this continue to be our problem? Our nation did what it could, but there is only so much that can be done, and how long are we supposed to bleed both money and blood there? What do we as a nation gain from that? I can't think of anything. IMO, The longer we stay there, the deeper the hole we dig for ourselves.

Same thoughts regarding Afghanistan. Iraq may have been one reasonably united country, but Afghanistan has never been and cannot be one. The locals are too recalcitrant with there own tribal and regional identities for it to be any other may. Has been for hundreds of years.

The result? A quagmire for any nation that get's involved there. The British Empire burnt it's fingers there 3 times, the Soviets once, rather spectacularly.

Despite what Obama says, the US won't fare any better. How many US servicemen and women are going to die or simply disappear into the dust before the last one of them leaves?

Mike.

[Ducimus]

but why were we fighting the war in the first place?

Well, at the time, it was claimed that Saddam had NBC weapons. That's initials for Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and the fear was he'd sell them to terrorists. I never did like the term "WMD". I think it was hatched because Bush couldn't pronounce Nuclear, and the media just latched onto it for the shock effect of the term, "Mass Destruction". Anyway, I think we all know how that panned out.

[The Third Man]

And when NATO bombed hell out of Bosnia? Because it was a civil war? Or were the same folks who criticise Iraq now were fearfull it was too close to their beloved countries.

Just asking.

[bradclark1]

The question I have is, why should this continue to be our problem? Our nation did what it could, but there is only so much that can be done, and how long are we supposed to bleed both money and blood there? What do we as a nation gain from that? I can't think of anything. IMO, The longer we stay there, the deeper the hole we dig for ourselves.
Oh, I'm not arguing the point. I'm just saying there is going to be a civil war now.

[The Third Man]

Oh, I'm not arguing the point. I'm just saying there is going to be a civil war now.

Isn't that what the then senator, Barack Obama was saying in 2007? That the US cannot effect a civil war in Iraq with a surge. Yet in Afghanistan he is pursing the same successful surge policy which could be called a civil war? Something must have changed in his mind. Will 'you' go allong with Barack's surge?

[bradclark1]

Isn't that what the then senator, Barack Obama was saying in 2007? That the US cannot effect a civil war in Iraq with a surge. Yet in Afghanistan he is pursing the same successful surge policy which could be called a civil war? Something must have changed in his mind. Will 'you' go allong with Barack's surge?
Yes I do go along with the surge. All we have been doing there is backpedaling and giving ground up to the Taliban. We never had enough troops there to accomplish the mission in the first place. I wouldn't term whats happening in Afghanistan a civil war. I'd call it a continuation of our invasion even though it's been years. Afghanistan has always gotten the short end of the stick compared to Iraq and the Taliban has made use of it. On the other hand they are already talking about drawdown next year which is a big mistake. If they draw down next year we might as well not bother and bring the troops home tomorrow because a year isn't going to make a difference.

[The Third Man]

Yes I do go along with the surge. All we have been doing there is backpedaling and giving ground up to the Taliban. We never had enough troops there to accomplish the mission in the first place. I wouldn't term whats happening in Afghanistan a civil war. I'd call it a continuation of our invasion even though it's been years. Afghanistan has always gotten the short end of the stick compared to Iraq and the Taliban has made use of it. On the other hand they are already talking about drawdown next year which is a big mistake. If they draw down next year we might as well not bother and bring the troops home tomorrow because a year isn't going to make a difference.

How is it you cannot call it a civil war? Taliban versus the elected Karzai government. Isn't that the definition of civil war? Or is it the Taliban V. the US? In which case Mr. Obama is contradicting himself, once again with a surge he opposed elsewhere, for the very civil war reason.

[bradclark1]

Can't speak for him. I can only tell you what I see.

[Schroeder]

The question I have is, why should this continue to be our problem?
Because you caused it?;)

[Ducimus]

Because you caused it?;)

By that logic, Germany should be Israel's most staunch and closest ally.

[Schroeder]

By that logic, Germany should be Israel's most staunch and closest ally.
Actually we are a close and staunch ally of Israel.

[SteamWake]

I never did like the term "WMD". I think it was hatched because Bush couldn't pronounce Nuclear,.


OMG thats priceless !!! :har:

[Penguin]

LMAO! :har:

another theory: maybe W. used the acronym WMD to prevent some overambitious maniacs from storming harmless TV networks: "Gimme dem NBC weapons!" - "Ok, we'll hand you out Leno!"

[Skybird]

:D

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3676/58368749j.jpg (http://img59.imageshack.us/i/58368749j.jpg/)

Actually we are a close and staunch ally of Israel.

Partially. The Israelis would be stupid if they count on us in vital issues, while the EU must be rated as not even a neutral entitity anymore from their perspective. And if you have read the bundeswehr-study I linked to, you see there is reason to assume that due to the need to please oil-producing states Germany will rethink it'S close ties to Israel sooner or later.