So it's come to this - an Iraq War Mega-Thread

[Drew Van T.]

Not a very fresh Iraq story, but it gets traction. I've heard of foot soldiers who don't want to go but these are relatively highly-paid civil servants who are usually dumped into the lap of luxury (at least inside the vast embassies).


U.S. diplomats angry over forced postings to Iraq
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON: Several hundred U.S. diplomats vented anger and frustration Wednesday about the State Department's decision to force foreign service officers to take jobs in Iraq, with some likening it to a "potential death sentence."

In a contentious hour-long "town hall meeting," they peppered officials behind the order with often hostile complaints about the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam. Announced last week, it will require some diplomats — under threat of dismissal — to serve at the embassy in Baghdad and in so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams in outlying provinces.

Many expressed serious concern about the ethics of sending diplomats against their will to serve in a war zone, where the embassy staff is largely confined to the so-called "Green Zone," and the safety outside the area is uncertain while a review of the department's use of private security contractors to protect its staff is under way.

"Incoming is coming in every day, rockets are hitting the Green Zone," said one who identified himself as Jack Croddy, a senior foreign service officer who once worked as a political adviser with NATO forces.

He and others directly confronted Foreign Service Director General Harry Thomas, who approved the move to "directed assignments" late last Friday to make up for a lack of volunteers willing to go to Iraq.

"It's one thing if someone believes in what's going on over there and volunteers, but it's another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment," Croddy said. "I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?"

His remarks were met with loud and sustained applause from the approximately 300 diplomats at the meeting.

Thomas responded by saying the comments were "filled with inaccuracies" but did not elaborate until challenged by the head of the diplomats' union, the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), who, like Croddy and others, demanded to know why many learned of the decision from news reports.

Thomas took full responsibility for the late notification but objected when AFSA President John Naland said a recent survey found only 12 percent of the union's membership believed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was "fighting for them."

Rice was not present for the meeting, but her top adviser on Iraq, David Satterfield, did attend.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack acknowledged the session had been "pretty emotional" but praised Thomas for holding it. He also stressed that all diplomats sign an oath to serve the country that obligates them to be available to work anywhere in the world.

"It's a pretty sensitive topic and understandably, some people are going to have some pretty strong feelings about it," McCormack told reporters after the meeting. "Ultimately, our mission in Iraq is national policy, it is the foreign policy set out by the secretary as well as the president of the United States.

He added that the results of the AFSA poll about Rice were "very unfortunate" because "she is deeply concerned with, by and involved in the management decisions regarding the foreign service (and) working as hard as she possibly can to get the resources for the State Department."

Other diplomats at the meeting did not object to the idea of directed assignments but questioned why the State Department had been slow to respond to the medical needs of those who had served in dangerous posts.

"I would just urge you, now that now we are looking at compulsory service in a war zone, that we have a moral imperative as an agency to take care of people who ... come back with war wounds," said Rachel Schnelling, a diplomat who served in Basra, Iraq and said the department had been unresponsive to requests for mental heath care.

"I asked for treatment and I didn't get any of it," she said in comments greeted with a standing ovation.

Thomas, who has been in his current job for just a few months, said the department was working on improving its response to stress-related disorders that "we did not anticipate."

Under the new order, 200 to 300 diplomats have been identified as "prime candidates" to fill 48 vacancies that will open next year at the Baghdad embassy and in the provinces. Those notified have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough say yes, some will be ordered to go.

Only those with compelling reasons, such as a medical condition or extreme personal hardship, will be exempt from disciplinary action.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/31/america/NA-GEN-US-Iraq-Embassy.php

[king mob]

The Pentagon today reported five US troops and a sailor killed in Iraq on Monday, making this year the deadliest since the 2003 invasion.
The five troops were killed in two incidents in Kirkuk province, and the sailor in Saluddin province, bringing the US death toll for this year to 854. The figure, with two months still to go, outstrips the previous worst, 849 in 2004, when the US took heavy casualties in an attack on Falluja.

The Pentagon attributes the high toll to an initial increase in combat operations, and higher visibility of US troops on the streets earlier this year as part of President George Bush's "surge" strategy, which saw an extra 30,000 troops sent to Iraq.
But after that intial rise in casualties, the numbers killed have been on a downward trend since May; last month's figure was the lowest since early last year.

During the initial stages of the surge, US troops left the protection of their large bases for redeployment in small, neighbourhood posts, presenting a target for insurgents.

Since then, they have divided Baghdad with a series of walls and introduced more rigorous ID checks that the US miltary claims has made it harder for insurgents to move about.

The US occupied Iraq with relatively low loss of life to its own forces, and there was an initial calm in the postwar period, but the overall death toll has since risen to 3,858.

The US is still assessing whether a drop in roadside explosives over the last three months is the result of a promise by Iran, in talks with the US in Baghdad, to try to stem the flow.

The US announced yesterday, possibly as part of a trade-off from the talks, that it is to release nine Iranians held in Iraq, including two of the five men arrested in January, a point of tension between the two countries. Iran claims the two were diplomats, while the US insists they are members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Quds force.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2206243,00.html

[king mob]

Three members of Iraq's Olympic soccer team and one of the team's assistant coaches have deserted their side to seek asylum in Australia. The Iraq team was in Australia to play a qualifying match for the Beijing Olympics.
Iraq's soccer federation secretary-general, Tariq Ahmed, has said that the four men disappeared from the team quarters on Sunday morning. They did not arrive at the airport for their scheduled departure. The assistant coach, Saadi Toma, later rang his fellow team officials and told them he and the three players - identified as Ali Mansour, Ali Khidhayyir and Ali Abbas - had stayed on and were now going to seek asylum.

"It's because of the deteriorated security situation and violence against athletes in Iraq," Ahmed said, "We all face the same danger, but it doesn't mean one should so easily abandon his team and defame his country's reputation."
"This will cause poor morale, and have a bad psychological effect on the other players," Ahmed continued, "They should have waited until finishing the qualifying round, and then they could go wherever they want. This only shows disloyalty to the country." Iraq is scheduled to play Lebanon and Syria later this week.

A spokeswoman for Australian immigration minister Kevin Andrews said the players were still holding valid temporary visas and had not yet applied for asylum. Regular visas last for three months, so the players have some time before they need to submit asylum applications.

The Iraq national team's successes in the past three years have provided a welcome distraction from the troubles of everyday life in the country. When Iraq won the Asian Cup in July, Baghdad erupted in raucous street parties to celebrate the victory despite the precarious security situation.

But athletes and sports officials have been frequent targets of violence and some have been subjected to threats, kidnappings and even assassination attempts.

Three members of the national team, which differs from Iraq's Olympic team but shares some of the same players, refused to return home after the Asia Cup victory. Captain Younis Mahmoud, as well as Nashat Akram and Hawar Mulla Mohammed, said they feared for their lives if they returned.


http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2213608,00.html

[Charles RB]

"They should put the team and the match over their own lives!"

Charming man, that Tariq.

[Aarcee]

Iraq is the new Vietnam.
The only question remaining is how many more of our troops, our allies troops, and innocent Iraqi civilians is Washington going to sacrifice, before they pull their heads out of the sand and admit that Iraq is a failure.

[Samurai]

Iraq is the new Vietnam.
The only question remaining is how many more of our troops, our allies troops, and innocent Iraqi civilians is Washington going to sacrifice, before they pull their heads out of the sand and admit that Iraq is a failure.

After we win it, and Iraq is stabilized. (which is already happening, the surge and other efforts were a huge success and should have been done LONG ago, casualties are down 55-75% in Iraq now) http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/troop-increase-cuts-deaths-military-says/2007/11/19/1195321697271.html


Troop increase cuts deaths, military says

Sudarsan Raghavan and David Finkel in Baghdad
November 20, 2007


THE US military has announced a 55 per cent drop in insurgent attacks in Iraq since the deployment of an extra 28,500 troops was completed in June.

A US military spokesman, Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, said on Sunday that violence in some parts of Iraq had fallen to its lowest level since mid-2005.

Iraqi civilian casualties were down 60 per cent since June, and had dropped 75 per cent in Baghdad, Admiral Smith said. "Terrorist attacks are at their lowest levels since January 2006. They are 55 per cent down since the beginning of the surge in June," he said.

[Shellhead]

We've been in Korea for over 50 years.

[Nick Soapdish]

Iraq is the new Vietnam.
The only question remaining is how many more of our troops, our allies troops, and innocent Iraqi civilians is Washington going to sacrifice, before they pull their heads out of the sand and admit that Iraq is a failure.

Or the new Philippines. That only required 15 years of fighting and then after another 30, we granted them complete independence and they've been an ally since.

That's just a bit longer than the initial projections though. "I don't think it'll take 6 months." "They'll greet us with outstretched arms."


After we win it, and Iraq is stabilized. (which is already happening, the surge and other efforts were a huge success and should have been done LONG ago, casualties are down 55-75% in Iraq now) http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/troop-increase-cuts-deaths-military-says/2007/11/19/1195321697271.html

I would argue that the surge is working. But it might just be for the duration of the surge. Or if the hawks are right about the effects of setting a withdrawal date, the insurgents could just be waiting for the surge to end as scheduled. We'll know better in the months after the surge ends although I have to concede that it's cut down on casualties a lot better than I was expecting. I agree that it's many of the things that we should've done a long time ago, but I was afraid (and still am) that it's too little, too late now.

[Paul McEnery]

"They should put the team and the match over their own lives!"

Charming man, that Tariq.

Can you imagine Bill Shankly saying anything different? :D

[SOGG]

Or the new Philippines. That only required 15 years of fighting and then after another 30, we granted them complete independence and they've been an ally since.<snipped for space>

That's.... a very simplistic idea of what happened in the Philippines.

The US occupied the Philippines after allying with us against Spain. Then after years and years of guerilla warfare where entire towns were put to the sword, the Japanese came and the US needed soldiers. After fighting side by side during the war the US gracefully 'granted' us independence in July 4, 1946. However, Philippine independence day is still celebrated as June 12, 1898 -- when we beat the Spanish.

As for being an ally... that's simplistic too. Apart from the current president and ferdie marcos, being anti-USAmerican played a huge part in winning an election. Many senators made their careers by refusing to renew the leases for the US bases in the Phils. Only one remains and that's just a reactivated one -- at Sangley point. Even our limited role when joining the "coalition of the willing" caused a huge political backlash for arroyo.

It is also still quite dangerous for USAmericans to be travelling to Mindanao, which is a shame since the US Army corps of Engineers has done (and continues to do) some amazing partnership work with the local government.

[Charles RB]

The only question remaining is how many more of our troops, our allies troops, and innocent Iraqi civilians is Washington going to sacrifice

Britain's already reduced its number of troops in Iraq and pulled out of active duty in Basra to perform an "overwatch" role.

Whether this is us retreating in the face of violence or us doing what we'd said before we'd do & a sign the Iraqi forces can handle things... well, that depends on who you ask.

[king mob]

After we win it, and Iraq is stabilized. (which is already happening, the surge and other efforts were a huge success and should have been done LONG ago, casualties are down 55-75% in Iraq now) http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/troop-increase-cuts-deaths-military-says/2007/11/19/1195321697271.html

You missed this from the previous page.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2206243,00.html

[Nick Soapdish]

That's.... a very simplistic idea of what happened in the Philippines.

The US occupied the Philippines after allying with us against Spain. Then after years and years of guerilla warfare where entire towns were put to the sword, the Japanese came and the US needed soldiers. After fighting side by side during the war the US gracefully 'granted' us independence in July 4, 1946. However, Philippine independence day is still celebrated as June 12, 1898 -- when we beat the Spanish.

As for being an ally... that's simplistic too. Apart from the current president and ferdie marcos, being anti-USAmerican played a huge part in winning an election. Many senators made their careers by refusing to renew the leases for the US bases in the Phils. Only one remains and that's just a reactivated one -- at Sangley point. Even our limited role when joining the "coalition of the willing" caused a huge political backlash for arroyo.

It is also still quite dangerous for USAmericans to be travelling to Mindanao, which is a shame since the US Army corps of Engineers has done (and continues to do) some amazing partnership work with the local government.

I know, regarding the former, although I thought I was just simplifying it.

As to being an ally, I know that we closed most of our bases back in the '80s due to strong protests and there was a certain amount of anti-American sentiment there, I thought that the Philippines were still allies.

[SOGG]

I know, regarding the former, although I thought I was just simplifying it.

As to being an ally, I know that we closed most of our bases back in the '80s due to strong protests and there was a certain amount of anti-American sentiment there, I thought that the Philippines were still allies.

You know, I read my response to your point and it's needlessly confrontational. I apologise. I just get really worked up about things like that. Maybe I need a little less caffeine in my life.

To clarify though, the alliance status of the Philippines and the US is largely dependent on who the current president is. And the various features of the alliance are also dependent on the current feel. For example, I think that arroyo is trying to get the VFA reinstated -- something that estrada removed after Ramos reinstated it after Aquino removed it.

So... yeah. It's not quite the US/UK.

[Nick Soapdish]

You know, I read my response to your point and it's needlessly confrontational. I apologise. I just get really worked up about things like that. Maybe I need a little less caffeine in my life.

To clarify though, the alliance status of the Philippines and the US is largely dependent on who the current president is. And the various features of the alliance are also dependent on the current feel. For example, I think that arroyo is trying to get the VFA reinstated -- something that estrada removed after Ramos reinstated it after Aquino removed it.

So... yeah. It's not quite the US/UK.

No harm.

I knew that I was overgeneralizing about the stuff that I knew and that I didn't have a complete picture. So simplistic is an accurate way of putting it, although I prefer to think of it as just simplifying the situation.

[Nitmo]

You missed this from the previous page.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2206243,00.html

Did you compare the dates of those two articles?

[Paul McEnery]

Did you compare the dates of those two articles?

So you're suggesting that within those two weeks, we brought in a faith healer who brought a whole bunch of soldiers back to life?

Because otherwise, I'm not seeing your point.

[Nick Soapdish]

So you're suggesting that within those two weeks, we brought in a faith healer who brought a whole bunch of soldiers back to life?

Because otherwise, I'm not seeing your point.

Hallelujah!

[Charles RB]

So you're suggesting that within those two weeks, we brought in a faith healer who brought a whole bunch of soldiers back to life?

I should point out the Guardian says the death toll was on a downward trend since May, following an initial leap at the start of the surge. (Nothing to say what'll happen when the surge ends though, as it eventually has to...)

I should also point out that roadside explosives have seen less use and this could be down to Iran stemming the flow as they said they would following diplomatic talks. So yay diplomacy, isn't it more fun than shooting?

[Paul McEnery]

I should point out the Guardian says the death toll was on a downward trend since May, following an initial leap at the start of the surge.

Well yeah.

But that's nothing to do with the surge. The surge was timed to take advantage of the fact that, ethnic cleansing now achieved, the main goal of the Iraqi militia is to get the Al Qaeda people out of the country. And they can use American help to do that -- or more accurately, freedom from American hindrance.

So the issue isn't what happens when the surge ends, it's what happens when the Al Qaeda people are out of there?

[J. Robb]

So yay diplomacy, isn't it more fun than shooting?
Quiet you, you'll hurt my defense stocks.

[Nitmo]

So you're suggesting that within those two weeks, we brought in a faith healer who brought a whole bunch of soldiers back to life?

Because otherwise, I'm not seeing your point.

Yes, one of those televangelists who shout "JESUS HEAL THIS PERSON!"


No, I mean that although more attacks occurred this year, they are now way down as an end result of the surge.

A lot of good things are happening in Iraq right now. Baghdads curfew is getting lifted, streets are no longer closed off, etc...

Progress IS being made, despite what you may or may not believe.

[Shellhead]

Yes, one of those televangelists who shout "JESUS HEAL THIS PERSON!"


No, I mean that although more attacks occurred this year, they are now way down as an end result of the surge.

A lot of good things are happening in Iraq right now. Baghdads curfew is getting lifted, streets are no longer closed off, etc...

Progress IS being made, despite what you may or may not believe.

The surge has only accomplished some limited and short-term goals. Unfortunately, no real progress is being made, because the Iraqis are nowhere near self-sufficient yet. That has to be the real goal, not reducing daily casualties. Because we can't afford another 50+ year engagement like Korea. We really goddamn can't. If we had that much wealth to spend, why are we so worried about Medicare going bust in a few years?

If the surge had really accomplished anything, then we should be able to pull troops out now, right? Only we can't, because all the surge proved is that Iraq is so messed up right now that we need to spend even more money there than we have been before the surge. It's a damn money pit. We could get just as much bang for our buck by having a big money bonfire in Texas, and there wouldn't be as many dead Americans.

It's a damn shame what we did to Iraq, but we can't afford to buy the place, and we can't afford to fix it and give it back to them nice and pretty either. We need to leave now and stop letting our young Americans die for neocon mistakes.

[SOGG]

Yes, one of those televangelists who shout "JESUS HEAL THIS PERSON!"


No, I mean that although more attacks occurred this year, they are now way down as an end result of the surge.

A lot of good things are happening in Iraq right now. Baghdads curfew is getting lifted, streets are no longer closed off, etc...

Progress IS being made, despite what you may or may not believe.

Clearly, this is a far better state from when y'all went in and destabilised the region.

[Magneto X]

A lot of good things are happening in Iraq right now.
Progress IS being made, despite what you may or may not believe.


Only if you shift the definition of "progress" in a rose colored glasses fashion to fit whatever ounce of good news you can eek from this hellhole. Was the current number of assassinations and bombings your original goal? Was a reduced curfew your original goal? Probably it was a stable government, a relatively united country, and a country whose millions of educated hadn't already fled the country. One of the least politicaly-manipulatable definitions of stability, foreign investment, says this place is not getting better. We're just wasting lives, what's left of our good name, and hundreds of billions.

[Nitmo]

Only if you shift the definition of "progress" in a rose colored glasses fashion to fit whatever ounce of good news you can eek from this hellhole. Was the current number of assassinations and bombings your original goal? Was a reduced curfew your original goal? Probably it was a stable government, a relatively united country, and a country whose millions of educated hadn't already fled the country. One of the least politicaly-manipulatable definitions of stability, foreign investment, says this place is not getting better. We're just wasting lives, what's left of our good name, and hundreds of billions.

I didn't know I was a member of the Administration that planned the attack.

[Nitmo]

The surge has only accomplished some limited and short-term goals. Unfortunately, no real progress is being made, because the Iraqis are nowhere near self-sufficient yet. That has to be the real goal, not reducing daily casualties. Because we can't afford another 50+ year engagement like Korea. We really goddamn can't. If we had that much wealth to spend, why are we so worried about Medicare going bust in a few years?

If the surge had really accomplished anything, then we should be able to pull troops out now, right? Only we can't, because all the surge proved is that Iraq is so messed up right now that we need to spend even more money there than we have been before the surge. It's a damn money pit. We could get just as much bang for our buck by having a big money bonfire in Texas, and there wouldn't be as many dead Americans.

It's a damn shame what we did to Iraq, but we can't afford to buy the place, and we can't afford to fix it and give it back to them nice and pretty either. We need to leave now and stop letting our young Americans die for neocon mistakes.


The end result of Korea was an economy we can trade with. And it's paying off. I see it at my work every day.

As for the surge, I agree with Samurai, it should have happened a lot sooner and to some extent, I agree with you. It didn't do everything it should have.

Unfortunately, there's no magic wand to wave to make this mess go away. But if we leave immediately, wouldn't we leave Iraqis feeling abandoned and thusly anger the people there who do like the fact that they can choose their own future?

We do need to eventually withdraw our troops on the street, but build military bases there, so our soldiers could help them out in times of need.

Bur bringing up another issue: I would support withdrawal, but I am against announcing an official date. Giving a date for our withdrawal is like giving a date for outside forces to invade. And then we'd probably have to go back in there and clean up that mess.

[Alex L]

Bur bringing up another issue: I would support withdrawal, but I am against announcing an official date. Giving a date for our withdrawal is like giving a date for outside forces to invade. And then we'd probably have to go back in there and clean up that mess.

Only if you believe the Iraqis are inherently unable to properly defend themselves, in which case we will be there forever...

[J. Robb]

Unfortunately, there's no magic wand to wave to make this mess go away. But if we leave immediately, wouldn't we leave Iraqis feeling abandoned and thusly anger the people there who do like the fact that they can choose their own future?
The US can withdraw but throw their support behind a strong UN peacekeeping mission. The US would also have to withdraw economically (which wouldn't go over well with the Friends of Bush), and get their mercenary army out of their as well.

The important thing would be to get a multinational force trying to keep the peace and rebuild the country, and remove the perception that Iraq is American conquered territory, and that private companies are profiting off their misery.

[Gary_B]

The US can withdraw but throw their support behind a strong UN peacekeeping mission. The US would also have to withdraw economically (which wouldn't go over well with the Friends of Bush), and get their mercenary army out of their as well.

The important thing would be to get a multinational force trying to keep the peace and rebuild the country, and remove the perception that Iraq is American conquered territory, and that private companies are profiting off their misery.

But when this whole nightmare started the UN wasn't finding the weapons of mass destruction that Bush & Co. claimed were there. The UN didn't believe that the so-called preemptive invasion was justified so why should they now take on the peacekeeping mission?

I was proud of Chretien (Canada's Prime Minister at the time) when he refused to back Bush and stated clearly that he would abide by the findings and decisions of the UN. I would hate to see the UN cleaning up after a military action that they refused to sanction in the first place.

[J. Robb]

I would hate to see the UN cleaning up after a military action that they refused to sanction in the first place.
But somebody has to. The Americans are doomed to failure as long as they try to "win" on their own terms. The only people who should matter are the people of Iraq, not US interests.

That's why I said the US should "stongly back" a UN mission. They engineered this chaos and misery, they have to keep funding the rebuilding. But in all other areas they must just be part of the team, not the leader.

With the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the sabre-rattling towards other countries like Iran, the US looks like an aggressive imperialist power right now (and rightly so.) To help heal the area, that perception has to be dealt with.

[Drew Van T.]

With the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the sabre-rattling towards other countries like Iran, the US looks like an aggressive imperialist power right now (and rightly so.) To help heal the area, that perception has to be dealt with.

The perception is accurate and truthful. So why would it have to change?

The Americans are doomed to failure (both in Iraq and Afghanistan) because of sustainability: the killing of soldiers will not stop, the roadside bombs will not stop. Both the army and the public become exhausted. Which is how things should be.

[yoda510]

Drew from Belgium hmmm? Giving the US advice on how to handle it. Stay neutral huh? Good idea huh? How did WWII work out for Belgium? Glad the US came over then? Or did you like Hitler blasting through Belgium and moving into France?

I think most American's wish we could get the troops home and end the killing. But no one wants another 9/11. Until the world helps the US hunt down and end these terrorist threats our options are limited. Unfortunetly it is taking trageties in other countries to get the US the help it needs. It is funny how coroportive Spain has been since the trageties there.

And everyone wants to complain about gas prices. What does everyone think gas will be if the US pulls out, Iraq falls into a Civil War and destablizes the whole region.

[Nick Soapdish]

Unfortunately, there's no magic wand to wave to make this mess go away. But if we leave immediately, wouldn't we leave Iraqis feeling abandoned and thusly anger the people there who do like the fact that they can choose their own future?

We do need to eventually withdraw our troops on the street, but build military bases there, so our soldiers could help them out in times of need.

Bur bringing up another issue: I would support withdrawal, but I am against announcing an official date. Giving a date for our withdrawal is like giving a date for outside forces to invade. And then we'd probably have to go back in there and clean up that mess.

According to polls that were commissioned by the DOD, most Iraqis want us gone and have as soon as they figured out that we weren't going to leave right away. We're the most obvious reason and target for everything that's going wrong over there.

When that Virginia Tech kid went nuts and shot up his school, a natural reaction from a lot of us was to blame somebody. (I saw both gun-control advocates and gun-rights advocates blaming the others.) That happens every day over there (now down to only a couple times a week). Before we came in, Saddam kept it from happening (with a few "minor" little inconveniences on the side). But if this is what democracy is, those inconveniences really do start to look minor to them.

I'm not saying that we need to withdraw right now. But I'm fucking pissed at how insanely incompetent our management plan for the occupation was and how we've apparently tried to deliberately screw up everything as badly as possible even when it wasn't for corporate financial gain.


Drew from Belgium hmmm? Giving the US advice on how to handle it. Stay neutral huh? Good idea huh? How did WWII work out for Belgium? Glad the US came over then? Or did you like Hitler blasting through Belgium and moving into France?

I think most American's wish we could get the troops home and end the killing. But no one wants another 9/11. Until the world helps the US hunt down and end these terrorist threats our options are limited. Unfortunetly it is taking trageties in other countries to get the US the help it needs. It is funny how coroportive Spain has been since the trageties there.

And everyone wants to complain about gas prices. What does everyone think gas will be if the US pulls out, Iraq falls into a Civil War and destablizes the whole region.

Oh, good. A comparison to WWII and an attempt to link what we're doing over there as having anything to do with 9/11. Neither Saddam nor Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or al-Qaeda.

In case you hadn't already noticed, Iraq has been in a civil war for a while (although we may have suppressed it with the surge) and the region has been de-stabilized.

And Spain was a member of the Coalition of the Willing and supporting the war prior to the bombings. It withdrew troops after the 2004 Madrid bombing (when a new government took power).

[Drew Van T.]

If you think I'm going to spend time debunking wildly-stretched analogies to the one big war that all Americans still feel "good" about (meaning that conservatives don't mind dragging WWII into every argument they can think of), then you are mistaken, yoda510.

Anyway, things are not as "as they should be" in any general sense. Things are a calamity. But illegal and immoral invasions and occupations deserve to end, and sometimes suffering attrition at the hands of an unruly populace really is the only way to bring that about. The military and psychological attrition part is "as it should be".

[king mob]

Drew from Belgium hmmm? Giving the US advice on how to handle it. Stay neutral huh? Good idea huh? How did WWII work out for Belgium? Glad the US came over then? Or did you like Hitler blasting through Belgium and moving into France?



Nick has said much of what I would have said (the whole argument you make is rubbish) but have you actually even bothered to read what Drew has said, or are you just trying to pull a wind-up?

[Alex]

I was proud of Chretien (Canada's Prime Minister at the time) when he refused to back Bush and stated clearly that he would abide by the findings and decisions of the UN. I would hate to see the UN cleaning up after a military action that they refused to sanction in the first place.

Well. the UN is currently ignoring ethnic genocide in other parts of the world, i don't see why they wouldn't ignore it in iraq as well.

[Drew Van T.]

Well. the UN is currently ignoring ethnic genocide in other parts of the world, i don't see why they wouldn't ignore it in iraq as well.

Hey, the UNHCR (the refugee agency) has spent $160 million (http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=SUBSITES&id=46764f0f2) on Sudan/Chad in 2007 alone. That's hardly ignoring.

[yoda510]

If you think I'm going to spend time debunking wildly-stretched analogies to the one big war that all Americans still feel "good" about (meaning that conservatives don't mind dragging WWII into every argument they can think of), then you are mistaken, yoda510.

Anyway, things are not as "as they should be" in any general sense. Things are a calamity. But illegal and immoral invasions and occupations deserve to end, and sometimes suffering attrition at the hands of an unruly populace really is the only way to bring that about. The military and psychological attrition part is "as it should be".

I don't have to go back to World War II. I can go back to 1991 when the US liberated Kuwait from Iraq. Or the late 80's when we ran Manual out of Panama. You think the invasion is Immoral, I also think it is immoral what Saddam did to his people killing and murdering. And since you can't say thank you, I will say you are welcome. My grandfather lost a leg in France liberating France and Belgium. You are welcome. The US is always ready to step up when others don't.

[Drew Van T.]

You think the invasion is Immoral, I also think it is immoral what Saddam did to his people killing and murdering.

Since 2003, more Iraqis have been killed than were ever killed by Saddam (if you look at absolute numbers, we passed that point some time ago). Looking at the situation that existed in Iraq prior to the invasion and ever since the Gulf War, we can safely assume that, even with Saddam's continued oppression, more than 100,000 Iraqis (at the very least, because there are much higher estimates) would not be dead today. That's the proportional equivalent (considering population size) of one million dead Americans.

And the responsibility for that decision lies entirely with America, considering that very few allies were willing to go along with it, and in any case these allies never had any real say in the decision making process.

I'm very sorry about your grandfather's leg, though.

[Titan76]

Drew from Belgium hmmm? Giving the US advice on how to handle it. Stay neutral huh? Good idea huh? How did WWII work out for Belgium? Glad the US came over then? Or did you like Hitler blasting through Belgium and moving into France?
What the hell does that have to do with Iraq?

And if you want to go that route the US was also neutral during WWII until Pearl Harbor and if Germany hadn't declare war on us the US wouldn't have even fought against them. The Allies would have won the war anyways since Britain won the Battle of Britain and Russia had enter the war.


I think most American's wish we could get the troops home and end the killing. But no one wants another 9/11.
Can you please explain what the Iraq war has anything to do with 9/11?

Until the world helps the US hunt down and end these terrorist threats our options are limited.
You mean the terrorist in Iraq that came there because of us?

Or the terrorist outside of Iraq?
Because if its the terrorist outside of Iraq last I check the world is helping us stooping them before they kill innocent people. They just use their Law Enforcement agencies instead of their armies, expect Pakistan.

Unfortunetly it is taking trageties in other countries to get the US the help it needs.
Why should other countries help the US for a war we started in Iraq on a claim that it had WMDs when it turned out they didn't?

And can you name all of these other trageties that has been happening to other countries that weren't supporting the US?


It is funny how coroportive Spain has been since the trageties there.
Last I check until a year or so ago Spain did have troops in Iraq during the start of the war.


And everyone wants to complain about gas prices. What does everyone think gas will be if the US pulls out,
Possibly cheaper. Who knows, since our Gov. has gotten nearly every one of its predictions wrong its hard to tell.

Can someone tell me how much oil the US has been getting from Iraq that last 4-7 years because to my knowledge its slim to none.

Iraq falls into a Civil War and destablizes the whole region.
Iraq is already in a Civil War. Or do you think 3 to 4 million Iraq refuges, tens of thousands dieing every year, Iraq people in the country getting little to no water, car bombs, militias guarding their own neighbor hoods was already happening before we got there?

[yoda510]

I'm very sorry about your grandfather's leg, though.

Thanks man :) Nothing personal in my comments though. I think hindsite is 20:20. I just think the US gets a bad wrap for trying to make the world a safer place sometimes. I don't agree with everything the government does, but my great Uncle was at Pearl Harbor, my Grandpa at D Day, my father and Uncle served at Vietnam and no one really cares about their sacrifices.

President Bush will go down as a very poorly rated president. But it is pretty amazing that as hard as terrorists groups are trying to hit the US since Sept of 2001, they have not. That means something is working.

So Titan, lay a strategy down for me. What would you do? Everyone attacks but has no solutions.

[Titan76]

I don't have to go back to World War II. I can go back to 1991 when the US liberated Kuwait from Iraq. Or the late 80's when we ran Manual out of Panama.
And France can go back to the late 1700's when it help America gain its Independence. And the US didn't liberated Kuwait on its own, over 20 countries took part in that both military and economically.

Yes its great that we have in the past liberated and help others but so have other countries and that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.


You think the invasion is Immoral, I also think it is immoral what Saddam did to his people killing and murdering.
Its not like the US has never done this before either.

It was immoral what Saddam did to his people and I'm glad he's gone. But that also has nothing to do for why went to war again with Iraq. North Korea has done far worse to its own people then Saddam has done to his but why did North Korea get a pass?


And since you can't say thank you, I will say you are welcome.
Why should he say thank you to you? Were you there? Did you help at all during WWII? Because if you didn't he doesn't have to say a dam thing to you about this.

And if you want to go by that argument we should say thank you to France every time since if it wasn't for them the US would not have beaten the British for independence.

My grandfather lost a leg in France liberating France and Belgium.
I'm sorry to hear that. Your grandfather is a hero.

You are welcome.
Again what did you do?

The US is always ready to step up when others don't.
The US does help other countries a lot but it also doesn't always step up when needed, example Sudden. Other countries do help out but their not a Superpower and don't have an economy like the US has.

[Titan76]

So Titan, lay a strategy down for me. What would you do? Everyone attacks but has no solutions.
I say we get out now and let Iraq decide its own faith. We been there for four years now, there's really nothing else we can do since our army and marines are not big enough to sustain the levels they are at right now.

What's your solution?

[Shellhead]

Well. the UN is currently ignoring ethnic genocide in other parts of the world, i don't see why they wouldn't ignore it in iraq as well.

That's the sensible approach. Even the United States doesn't have the resources to combat genocide everywhere. Hell, we are struggling mightily to stop genocide in just Iraq right now. That (and the lack of oil there) is why we're ignoring the situation in Sudan right now. It's also why we stayed out of Bosnia for so long. Our big expensive mess in Iraq is hurting our currency right now, and people are still dying from sectarian violence in Iraq.

[yoda510]

I say we get out now and let Iraq decide its own faith. We been there for four years now, there's really nothing else we can do since our army and marines are not big enough to sustain the levels they are at right now.

What's your solution?

I totally agree with Iraq deciding its own fate. But if that region destablizes who knows what happens to the Oil markets. And even worse, who is waiting to step in and take the US's place.

I don't have a solution or all the information to know what would be the best solution. I just hope and pray that our military, lawmakers, and other countries do the right thing.

[Titan76]

I totally agree with Iraq deciding its own fate. But if that region destablizes who knows what happens to the Oil markets. And even worse, who is waiting to step in and take the US's place.
Iraq hasn't been a major player in the oil markets in a long time and I doubt Iran and Saudi Arabia will go to war with each other.

No one knows exactly what will happen but when a country's people who you were liberating tells you to get out I would take that as a sign in saying its time to go. We have done nothing but put that country into chaos and fuck up millions of lives for what, cheaper gas?

I will also say that the Israeli/Palestine crisis has a much higher percentage in destabilizes that region then Iraq does.

I don't have a solution or all the information to know what would be the best solution. I just hope and pray that our military, lawmakers, and other countries do the right thing.
To do the right thing now is a major subject of debate in which I don't feel like getting into. The point is the military has accomplish its mission in freeing Iraq which means their job is done so bring them home. Its been four years now and Bush doesn't have the brains to know how to solve this problem and neither does Congress who doesn't even have a spine to do what they know they should do.

[Charles RB]

Drew from Belgium hmmm? Giving the US advice on how to handle it. Stay neutral huh? Good idea huh?

The Irish thought so. And the Swiss.


Glad the US came over then?

So we're bringing up WW2 and ignoring the United Kingdom, India, Australia, New Zealand, India, Canada, Greece, French Free Forces, the Soviet Union...

And World War 2 cannot be compared to Iraq and the current terrorism focus - the Iraqi insurgent groups and Al-Queda do not have the destructive capability of the Axis powers. Note how they managed one successful attack on British soil while the Luftwaffe hit us daily at the height of the Battle of Britain, and conducting a aerial warfare campaign across the Channel is a lot harder to do than blow things up with your mates (the latter is pretty damn easy if you don't suck).


But no one wants another 9/11. Until the world helps the US hunt down and end these terrorist threats our options are limited.

The terrorists likely to cause another September 11 are not actually in Iraq, so that's an irrelevant analogy. (They were in Afghanistan but we fucked up at capturing them, which is also why the Taliban has regrouped & is dominating the south)


Unfortunetly it is taking trageties in other countries to get the US the help it needs. It is funny how coroportive Spain has been since the trageties there.

Yeah, there's a slight problem here. The first problem is Spain pulled its troops out of Iraq after a change in government. The second is that being in Iraq is unpopular in the UK and Australia despite terrorist attacks in London and Bali (which killed Australian holidaymakers) and the new Australian government is going to be withdrawing a third of its men while the new UK Prime Minister is promising to withdraw troop numbers and the British army's pulled out of Basra to do overwatch rather than active patrol; they're not linking counter-terrorism to Iraq (we're doing quite well at preventing attacks using the police, albeit with the occassional cock-up and one pointless civilian death at police hands). The third problem is that Turkey has been facing terrorist attacks and is talking about invading the Kurdistan region of Iraq - which is relatively stable - in response to it, which nobody wants them to do.

And then there's Italian courts are putting CIA operatives on trial (in absentia) for using extraordinary rendition on Italian soil. It didn't make the Canadians happy when it was done to one of their citizens either, and there was an official investigation into it & CIA "black" prisons by the European Union.

[Gary_B]

I don't have to go back to World War II. I can go back to 1991 when the US liberated Kuwait from Iraq. Or the late 80's when we ran Manual out of Panama. You think the invasion is Immoral, I also think it is immoral what Saddam did to his people killing and murdering. And since you can't say thank you, I will say you are welcome. My grandfather lost a leg in France liberating France and Belgium. You are welcome. The US is always ready to step up when others don't.

Please turn it down a notch. Patriotism isn't an American product. People from all countries have pride in their nation. Fuck, I'm Canadian and I love my country. But if you beat your chest any harder you're gonna break a rib!

[Charles RB]

Major anti-insurgency raid in Kirkuk by Iraqi and US forces. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7111194.stm) A curfew and road blocks were unleashed without warning.

Whether this will actually work, I dunno - apparently sweeps have been done before and there's still been bombings. Since there's an allegedly volatile mix of ethnicities with different idea about who the city belongs to (the Kurds want it in their bit), I doubt simply nabbing people is going to work, you'd need to sort out the potential cause of violence as well.

[Aarcee]

I think that the reason there are so many problems in so many middle-eastern countries is that they do not have seperation of religion and state.
When you mix religion and state, you always get tyrany, injustace, and suffering.
If Suni Islam is the state religion, then Shite muslims are going to be pissed off. If Shia Islam is the state relgion, the Sunnies are going to be pissed off.
To say nothing of Kurds, Christians, and Jews.
No one wants their tax dollers going to support a religion that they are not part of, nor do they want their children indoctrinated into a state religion in school, nor do they want to be ruled by laws that are based on a religion that they are not part of.
After the American conquest of Iraq, Bush had a unique oppertunity to introduce democarcy and freedom to Iraq.
But Bush has never been crazy about freedom or seperation of religion and state.
Right from the beginng he said "This will be an Islamic government; based on Islamic law".
Of course the end result was civil war.
Suni vs Shi, vs, Kurd, vs everybody else; with no end in sight.

[Nick Soapdish]

I don't have to go back to World War II. I can go back to 1991 when the US liberated Kuwait from Iraq. Or the late 80's when we ran Manual out of Panama. You think the invasion is Immoral, I also think it is immoral what Saddam did to his people killing and murdering. And since you can't say thank you, I will say you are welcome. My grandfather lost a leg in France liberating France and Belgium. You are welcome. The US is always ready to step up when others don't.

Well, you've found some examples that aren't completely ridiculous, but there are still a few big differences and some similarities that you might not appreciate.

Kuwait wasn't just an American job and we actually have some indirect blame for it. Saddam invaded because it mistakenly thought that the US was ok with it based on some diplomatic probing. Lots of other nations participated in the liberation of Kuwait and it was backed by the UN.

We also have bear some blame for the subsequent atrocities of Saddam because Bush41 encouraged the Iraqis to revolt against Saddam and then decided (with advice from people such as Sec'ry of Defense, Cheney) that getting involved would be a horrible morass and a bad idea so we didn't provide any back-up or air support and the revolution was crushed.

Manuel Noriega was on the CIA's payroll and a staunch US ally for decades (including prior to him taking power). We only overthrew him because we started to get the idea that he was playing both sides and also spying for Cuba. Humanitarian interests had nothing to do with it.

Americans used to be grateful to France for its own support of the US in our battle for independence (note that I said support, not doing it for us, a major difference between what's happening here in Iraq). According to memoirs of soldiers in both World Wars, we felt that our participation was paying them back. That sort of gratitude has gotten a bit out of vogue since then, particularly since they haven't been obediently following every word of ours like the UK, recently highlighted by the "freedom fries".

IMO, neither of us is "even" with the other. We're allies and we've both supported the other in time of need, but that support was also based on our own self-interest, particularly with respect to the Revolutionary War and WWII.


I totally agree with Iraq deciding its own fate. But if that region destablizes who knows what happens to the Oil markets. And even worse, who is waiting to step in and take the US's place.

I don't have a solution or all the information to know what would be the best solution. I just hope and pray that our military, lawmakers, and other countries do the right thing.

If that region destabilizes?

That's already happened.


Israel has had increased problems with Hizbollah in Lebanon, resulting in their invasion.
Turkey has had similar problems with Kurds since our invasion.
Iraq has turned into an al-Qaeda training ground.
Afghanistan has reverted to nearly as strong of a Taliban stronghold as it previously was.
Al-Qaeda strength in Pakistan has increased dramatically and Musharraf has imposed virtual martial law and severely curtailed freedoms.
And Iran, after initially offering to help with Afghanistan and helping to negotiate the surrender of the Northern Alliance, and subsequently getting rebuffed on its offers has elected a demogogue for President and has been much more aggressively pursuing its nuclear program.


I might be missing stuff, but I'm not sure how well they might relate to our policies in Iraq.

[Tages]

President Bush will go down as a very poorly rated president. But it is pretty amazing that as hard as terrorists groups are trying to hit the US since Sept of 2001, they have not. That means something is working.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a
charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

[Tages]

Stupid server

[king mob]

And since you can't say thank you, I will say you are welcome.

That's one of the most incredibly patronising & downright wanky things I've read on these boards, which is somewhat of a feat.

The US is always ready to step up when others don't.


USAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA!!!!

[Tages]

Oh, missed this part...


You are welcome.

And you're welcome for the Mona Lisa, painted by an Italian. I say this since I'm half-Italian.

What's that?

Oh, sorry. Maybe I shouldn't have taken credit for something I had nothing whatsoever to do with.

[JeffreyWKramer]

First off, people paying attention to the war in Iraq might be interested in this NPR segment.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16686546

It’s quite well done. The basics: The US Army is having a lot of difficulty retaining mid-level officers, especially captains, the guys that tend to be the folk immediately in charge of military operations. Large numbers of experienced captains that have served in Iraq have been leaving the military, many of them tired of or traumatized by their experiences in duty, and a fair number expressing frustration with the war and the belief that their sacrifice doesn’t matter, because no matter how well they do, the Iraqi government and culture are a mess of the sort that pretty much guarantees continued problems until things change. So far, the only thing the Pentagon’s come up with to slow this attrition is to offer $35,000 bonuses for captains that reenlist for three years. That might not sound like a lot of money for a person to put his life on the line, but keep in mind, we’re talking about people that signed up on their own, most of whom were eager to serve and many who were planning to make a career of military service – and even with that bonus, a lot of these folk are still leaving.

The segment itself is quite well-done, and I recommend it, but one of the things I found most interesting about it is that it almost perfectly mirrors the same things I’ve been hearing from people that have served over there. That doesn’t surprise me, but it is good to get independent confirmation. Unfortunately, the news isn’t very good.

Of those I’ve talked with – about two dozen at this point - only a few have been captains; the rest have been privates or lieutenants. Some of them are people I’ve known for years, some of them are people I’ve just recently met, in a social context or friends-of-a-friend. None of them are clients, as most of the veterans that are receiving mental health services do so through the VA, while the ones still on duty don’t tend to receive services at all. I’m also talking here specifically about people that have been serving in Iraq. I haven’t had as much opportunity to talk to people that have been serving in Afghanistan, and in fact most of the people I personally know that have been serving there are Navy SEALs that can’t talk at all about what they’re doing.

Some of what these folk are saying differs from what we’re hearing from the politicians and the Pentagon brass, though a fair number of former/retired officers are saying more or less the same thing. Me, I’ll take the words of the soldiers that have been in direct combat over there over the word of some politician or some general, especially one that has to be careful what he says for the sake of his career.

In the accounts of these soldiers, I’ve heard four things over and over. First, the good. Almost all of these soldiers have stated that things really are going better militarily in Iraq than tends to be apparent from what we see and hear on the news. Some have felt it’s been going better all along, others have said it’s only started getting better over the past several months, but all but a few say that things are going well from a military standpoint. As usual, our soldiers have been serving competently and have been largely effective in performing the duties asked of them, and they’ve started to have some successes to show for it, in terms of more hostile forces captured and killed, reduced casualties among military personnel (US and Iraqi) and civilians, and fewer bombings and terrorist incidents in general. Some have said things aren’t quite as rosy as the President keeps suggesting, but all but a couple honestly feel the military is being successful over there right now.

Unfortunately, every single one of the folk I’ve talked to has also said that the military’s success ultimately doesn’t matter, because the Iraqis aren’t doing a damn thing for long-term change. The situation, I’m told, is pretty much that the Americans do everything that’s actually getting done over there – taking almost all risks, doing almost all of the military operations more challenging than manning guard posts, spending all the money, completing all the projects that actually get done with any sort of competence – while the Iraqis mostly just sit back and watch, or take every opportunity to line their pockets, and pretty much every Iraqi feels that as soon as America gets fed up and pulls out, it’s going to be a bloodbath. One guy I talked to said “When we leave, these people are going to kill each other in numbers that will make Saddam’s time in power seem like a national holiday, and there’s nothing at all we can do to prevent that.” That’s the second point.

They all say that there is no sign that any level of the Iraqi national government is accomplishing anything at all other than lining their pockets, and they all say that nobody actually on the ground over there – American or Iraqi – has any confidence whatsoever that this is going to change as long as the current government is maintained. The government is essentially doing almost nothing to provide jobs or infrastructure, and no real progress is being made in terms of any sort of national unity or coherent policy. Most of them also say that the Iraqi forces continue to be iffy at best, and pretty much undependable. Several of the soldiers I talked with said that if left to handle things for themselves, probably half the Iraqi forces would join one or another sectarian group, and most of the rest would just abandon their duties in fear for their lives. Again and again I’ve heard descriptions of the Iraqi forces such as “no morale at all”, “not dedicated” and “they can’t be depended on in the field.”

Over and over, what these soldiers have told me boils down to this: If the Iraqis don’t start making changes, there is no point to our being over there and wasting our time and resources and the health and lives of our soldiers. Unless the Iraqis get their act together, the most our troops can accomplish is to delay the inevitable chaos. None of these soldiers say that *might* happen when we leave; all of them say that as things stand now, that is what *will* happen.

As these soldiers tell it, many of the problems with both the Iraqi government and the Iraqi armed forces boil down to the third point: wide-scale corruption. As they describe it, everything they’ve seen suggests that pretty much every Iraqi official, at every level of office, and a large percentage of the Iraqi forces, including almost all their officers, are corrupt to the core. Nothing happens there without bribes being paid. People pass along sensitive information for money or for ideology or both. A huge percentage of the money the US sends to support the Iraqis gets skimmed by crooks. Any project done by the Iraqis but funded by the US either doesn’t get done, or gets done in a shoddy, half-assed manner. Lots of people are getting paid for work that isn’t done at all, and some of them – especially relatives of local or national officials - are getting paid without ever having shown up to do the job. Worst of all, nothing is being done about this; many of these soldiers say they’re told that nothing can be done about it, and some say they were told to not even try. The American higher-ups know all about this, but don’t confront it for fear of offending the Iraqis, and because they don’t have anyone else to work with. There are virtually no joint US/Iraqi anti-corruption efforts, and the Iraqi government and military pay lip-service, at most, to the idea of reform. Any time someone is actually arrested or removed from duty or office for corruption, it’s because they didn’t pay off someone higher up or they pissed off the wrong someone.

Fourth and finally, I hear over and over again that our forces over there are getting worn down to the point that nothing is left. Too many and too long of deployments have taken their toll, physically and psychologically. Our people are being wounded and killed over there with no end in sight and no perception that anything they do is really going to matter in the long run, and that recognition is the primary reason why many of these people – the ones I’ve talked with and the ones interviewed for that NPR piece – are leaving the military.

Anyhow, that's what I have been hearing. I assume I'm not the only person that's been talking to some people that have been serving over there, so anyone else that's talked to people actually doing the fighting over there, are you hearing similar stuff? Different stuff?

[Michael P]

None of them are clients, as most of the veterans that are receiving mental health services do so through the VA, while the ones still on duty don’t tend to receive services at all.

This... well, it doesn't stun me, but it does disgust me. I would imagine the ones out on the front lines every day are the ones who need those services most. Even if it's just the basic comfort of having an outlet to share whatever thoughts or feelings they can't say out loud to their comrades or superiors.

It also strikes me that if there had been an on-site counselor for the soldiers at Abu Gharaib, things there might not have gotten so out of hand.

[JeffreyWKramer]

This... well, it doesn't stun me, but it does disgust me. I would imagine the ones out on the front lines every day are the ones who need those services most. Even if it's just the basic comfort of having an outlet to share whatever thoughts or feelings they can't say out loud to their comrades or superiors.

It also strikes me that if there had been an on-site counselor for the soldiers at Abu Gharaib, things there might not have gotten so out of hand.

The military has done a better job than ever before at making mental health services available to the troops in combat, but there have been numerous news accounts of higher-ranking officers behaving very prejudicially toward soldiers that actually access those services. I've heard the same thing from some of the soldiers I've talked with, as well as statements along the lines of "if you talk to a shrink, everyone will assume you're crazy." There's still a lot of stigma against psychological services in the military.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I'd recommend checking out 'The Shock Doctrine' by Naomi Klein.
You'd probably dislike it's cheering for big government (well, complaining that a lot of countries lost big government undemocratically), but it does have some interesting info on Iraq, including some reasons why the Iraqis aren't doing much, and why their government is useless (beyond the fact that it's mostly people they didn't vote for - the body in charge of business laws was appointed by Americans, not voted for by the Iraqis).

[Adam C]

The corruption doesn't surprise me given everything I have read on how things are run in Iraq. The defence ministry was once bilked out of $1 billion (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article313538.ece) in funds for buying equipment by a corrupt defence minister who took the cash and bought inferior and defective equipment. How was this theft managed? By getting an exemption from the cabinet from spending oversight.

Now the lack of mental health services to soldiers active on the ground and facing an insurgency that has hardly slown down...well I guess I shouldn't be surprised given what I've read on how this damn war has been handled. But I am. Moreso, after just reading what you mentioned Kramer about the stigma against getting pyschological help in the military.

[Drew Van T.]

Unfortunately, every single one of the folk I’ve talked to has also said that the military’s success ultimately doesn’t matter, because the Iraqis aren’t doing a damn thing for long-term change.

"It's all the Iraqi's own fault" is a sickening line no matter who says it. As if they ever asked to be invaded and occupied.

Those captains who are leaving to avoid serving in Iraq are making the right choice: they are the only captains who have any right to complain about anything, because at least they have chosen to stop being a part of the problem first.

[Paul McEnery]

No doubt it occurs to nobody that when you create a government as a colonial outpost and thrown money around like a drunken sailor; and when you toss corrupt money to Haliburton and Blackwater; that there might be a blatant source of corruption and apathy.

[JeffreyWKramer]

"It's all the Iraqi's own fault" is a sickening line no matter who says it. As if they ever asked to be invaded and occupied.


Nobody blames them for the occupation.

They are, however, completely responsible for their own failure to get their heads out of their asses and do something with their own country rather than try to rob it blind or kill the members of other ethnic groups.

[Dreadstar]

Nobody blames them for the occupation.

They are, however, completely responsible for their own failure to get their heads out of their asses and do something with their own country rather than try to rob it blind or kill the members of other ethnic groups.

This is one of those "so self-evident, it hurts to explain it" things I mentioned elsewhere. Where would things stand in Iraq be today in that implied hypothetical?

[Paul McEnery]

Nobody blames them for the occupation.

They are, however, completely responsible for their own failure to get their heads out of their asses and do something with their own country rather than try to rob it blind or kill the members of other ethnic groups.

And how are you supposed to do something with your own country when it isn't your own country?

[Shellhead]

Nobody blames them for the occupation.

They are, however, completely responsible for their own failure to get their heads out of their asses and do something with their own country rather than try to rob it blind or kill the members of other ethnic groups.

It's human nature to want to settle old grudges. Exceptional individuals can rise above that tendency, but most won't. Months before the invasion in 2003, I predicted that there would be civil war in Iraq between the Sunnis and Shiites. The real underlying problem is that Iraq shouldn't have been a country in the first place. The regions of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul were forced together under the British mandate granted by the League of Nations.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And how are you supposed to do something with your own country when it isn't your own country?

They could stop killing each other and ripping each other, and leave the killing to the foreigners and the ripping-off to Haliburton and such.

They could also consider things like, I dunno, actual compromise.

It's astounding, and painful, that some things like that *aren't* self-evident to some.

[SOGG]

They could stop killing each other and ripping each other, and leave the killing to the foreigners and the ripping-off to Haliburton and such.

They could also consider things like, I dunno, actual compromise.

It's astounding, and painful, that some things like that *aren't* self-evident to some.

Jeff, you remember when they 'accidentally' overheard bush saying to blair that they should just get Syria to 'stop that shit'?

This sounds just about as simplistic.

The Brits come in (with the 'mandate' of the league of nations), make a royal mess, go away the the US plays handball with the region for decades. Now, you want to make the Iraqis to forget all that happened and pretend it's Care-a-Lot?

I'm no expert on international matters, but I think that that's overly simplistic.

Besides, Paul's right. As things stand right now, it's in no sense 'their' country.

[Paul McEnery]

They could stop killing each other and ripping each other, and leave the killing to the foreigners and the ripping-off to Haliburton and such.

They could also consider things like, I dunno, actual compromise.

It's astounding, and painful, that some things like that *aren't* self-evident to some.

Compromise with whom?

Seriously, this is exactly what you'd expect to get under colonial occupation. The Iraqis don't have any real say about anything; the best they can do is oppose the legislation that the government tries to put through at America's behest; and oppose the infrastructure that America is trying to create for its own colonial purposes.

Unless you think it's okay for Iraq to just hand over its resources to American companies.

[Dreadstar]

Seriously, this is exactly what you'd expect to get under colonial occupation. The Iraqis don't have any real say about anything; the best they can do is oppose the legislation that the government tries to put through at America's behest; and oppose the infrastructure that America is trying to create for its own colonial purposes.

Thing is, I don't think that's what Jeffrey is talking about. If I could put it into an example using the U.S., what he's saying is it's be like if we were under occupation and the KKK was trying to fill the power vacuum while offing as many blacks and Jews as they could along the way. Meanwhile, the Religious Right is doing everything it can to buy seats in the government so it can outlaw Mormonism. The Native Americans just want to be heard but EVERYONE would rather annihilate them as give them their say.

Is that about right, Jeffrey?

[Paul McEnery]

Thing is, I don't think that's what Jeffrey is talking about. If I could put it into an example using the U.S., what he's saying is it's be like if we were under occupation and the KKK was trying to fill the power vacuum while offing as many blacks and Jews as they could along the way. Meanwhile, the Religious Right is doing everything it can to buy seats in the government so it can outlaw Mormonism. The Native Americans just want to be heard but EVERYONE would rather annihilate them as give them their say.

Is that about right, Jeffrey?

Ow. Ow ow ow.

I think you're about right, but it's hurting my brain trying to hold all the analogy at once.

[Drew Van T.]

They could stop killing each other and ripping each other, and leave the killing to the foreigners and the ripping-off to Haliburton and such.

They could also consider things like, I dunno, actual compromise.

It's astounding, and painful, that some things like that *aren't* self-evident to some.

One possible way to end sectarian strife is this: when leaders begin to emerge from the factions who see the big picture, want to rise above the pettiness, and get everyone behind their new peaceful vision.

One of the problems with the continuing American involvement (besides all the neo-colonialist tendencies) is precisely, I think, that it contributes to preventing this from happening. How can any potential Iraqi peacemakers emerge while the country remains under partial American control?

Because, for one, the Iraqi government we currently have is tainted both by its association with the occupier and by its own corruption, so a peacemaker is unlikely to emerge from there. How would he ever gain the confidence of sufficient people from each ethnic and religious group to start forging new bonds between them? It is obvious that most Iraqis either distrust or actively despise their current government.

On the other hand, anyone working outside the Iraqi government is - almost by definition, under the current circumstances - an enemy of that government and therefore an enemy of the American troops. That means the only way for him to achieve sufficient popularity in Iraq is to first fight both the government and the Americans, and he would have to do it pretty successfully too. Which is not an easy task and is just as likely to get him killed, long before he can achieve the kind of exalted position from which a successful popular movement can sweep and fundamentally change the entire country.

The second scenario is nevertheless the more likely one, IMO. As the American military efforts gradually break down under the strain and troop levels are further reduced, a few insurgent leaders will be able to claim credit for this in the eyes of the public. With any luck there will be at least one visionary among them.

[Magneto X]

Hillary's war drum:


http://youtube.com/watch?v=qm9TYJfRoqk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=L3gQfz8GC0o&feature=related


http://youtube.com/watch?v=eZvEbhwed7E

[JeffreyWKramer]

Thing is, I don't think that's what Jeffrey is talking about. If I could put it into an example using the U.S., what he's saying is it's be like if we were under occupation and the KKK was trying to fill the power vacuum while offing as many blacks and Jews as they could along the way. Meanwhile, the Religious Right is doing everything it can to buy seats in the government so it can outlaw Mormonism. The Native Americans just want to be heard but EVERYONE would rather annihilate them as give them their say.

Is that about right, Jeffrey?

Yeah, that's a pretty good analogy.

I'm not saying that the Iraqis haven't been fucked over a lot, and clearly the US invasion made things even worse. At this point, though, it's not them being fucked over by outsiders (or at least not just that). They're fucking themselves over.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I'm not saying that the Iraqis haven't been fucked over a lot, and clearly the US invasion made things even worse. At this point, though, it's not them being fucked over by outsiders (or at least not just that). They're fucking themselves over.

As a lot of them went from middle class to poor in the blink of an eye, they're fighting for whatever they can get.
You'd sign up to a militia if they were the only source of food, medicine and electricity as well.
Heck, it's practically a libertarians wet-dream over there right now.

[Paul McEnery]

As a lot of them went from middle class to poor in the blink of an eye, they're fighting for whatever they can get.
You'd sign up to a militia if they were the only source of food, medicine and electricity as well.
Heck, it's practically a libertarians wet-dream over there right now.

It's Red Dawn.

[Adam C]

As a lot of them went from middle class to poor in the blink of an eye, they're fighting for whatever they can get.

You may want to check those numbers since about 40% of the Middle Class are estimated to have fled.

[JeffreyWKramer]

As a lot of them went from middle class to poor in the blink of an eye, they're fighting for whatever they can get.
You'd sign up to a militia if they were the only source of food, medicine and electricity as well.
Heck, it's practically a libertarians wet-dream over there right now.

There's a major difference between self-protection and the sort of outright us-vs-them aggression that characterizes much of the factional violence in Iraq.

Also, you seem to be mistaking libertarianism with anarchism.

[JeffreyWKramer]

It's Red Dawn.

Some of it, you can compare. The groups that are going primarily after the US forces probably do view themselves as something akin to the Americans resisting foreign invasion in that movie.

But Red Dawn didn't feature neighborhoods fighting against the other neighborhoods, or using the chaos as an opportunity to settle a grudge with the guy down the street.

[Paul McEnery]

Some of it, you can compare. The groups that are going primarily after the US forces probably do view themselves as something akin to the Americans resisting foreign invasion in that movie.

But Red Dawn didn't feature neighborhoods fighting against the other neighborhoods, or using the chaos as an opportunity to settle a grudge with the guy down the street.

Because John Milius is a crazy person.

Everyone knows Red Dawn would really be Dawn of the Dead.

[Wally_West]

I know this has probably been beaten to death by now, and this is definitely not a novel idea, but does anyone else feel like our generation's Iraq is the EXACT equivolent of Vietnam of the 60s?

I mean...our government will not go to war if they do not see a potential profit.

Here's a not so radical theory: Our veterans died in Vietnam for the drugs. We're dying in Iraq for oil. The Vietnam part will likely be impossible to prove, without getting killed, anyway...

Our politics piss me off like nothing else can...

[SOGG]

I know this has probably been beaten to death by now, and this is definitely not a novel idea, but does anyone else feel like our generation's Iraq is the EXACT equivolent of Vietnam of the 60s?

<snipped for space>

Well... no , because "There are communists in there!" is true

while

"they have weapons of mass destruction and have ties to al qaeda!"
is not -- at least not when it was said.

[Charles RB]

BBC article on what may happen in 2008 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7143953.stm) - the view appears to be that 2008 is going to be significant either because things continue to stabilise or go to hell.

With the whole "let's back Sunni militias!" thing, I'm assuming the latter. How do you stop them saying "right, Al-Queda's laying low, let's get back to killing the Shias"?

[SOGG]

I still think it's beyond parody to suggest that things have gotten better in Iraq since before the Americans came.

[Alex L]

I know this has probably been beaten to death by now, and this is definitely not a novel idea, but does anyone else feel like our generation's Iraq is the EXACT equivolent of Vietnam of the 60s?

I mean...our government will not go to war if they do not see a potential profit.

Here's a not so radical theory: Our veterans died in Vietnam for the drugs. We're dying in Iraq for oil. The Vietnam part will likely be impossible to prove, without getting killed, anyway...

Our politics piss me off like nothing else can...

Explain? :confused:

I know the Opium war took place over the UK's ability to illegally sell drugs to Chinese citizens, but I never heard anything about the Vietnam war taking place over drugs.

[Wally_West]

Explain? :confused:

I know the Opium war took place over the UK's ability to illegally sell drugs to Chinese citizens, but I never heard anything about the Vietnam war taking place over drugs.

i actually can't. all i know is that laos, cambodia and vietnam were huge in the opium world.

but theres no way the 60s administration would talk about fighting vietnam for drugs. just like the bush administration will never mentioning oil as a reason we're in iraq.

frankly, is it just a coincidence we happened to be fighting a war there in the 60s?

is it a coincidence that we just happen to be fighting a war in the middle east, which is abundant in oil?

i'm not saying i'm right. i'm just asking you to entertain the idea.

[Alex]

Because John Milius is a crazy person.

Everyone knows Red Dawn would really be Dawn of the Dead.

I just wanted to pop in and say red dawn is the best bad movie ever.
And it definetly has the best plot ever.

[J. Robb]

This isn't war for oil. It's worse, it's war for the sake of war.

It's buying bombs off your friends, blowing crap up, then paying your friends to clean it up (sometimes the same friends.) Grab some more money from the taxpayers and repeat endlessly.

War is no longer an event, it's an industry.

[SOGG]

This isn't war for oil. It's worse, it's war for the sake of war.

It's buying bombs off your friends, blowing crap up, then paying your friends to clean it up (sometimes the same friends.) Grab some more money from the taxpayers and repeat endlessly.

War is no longer an event, it's an industry.

You know, I think about this this way sometimes.

All the signs seem to point in that direction. Like how defence industry stock is always a good buy. I stopped keeping honeywell just because my guilt couldn't take it. Or Eurest.

I know what Von Clauswitz said. It's just... I can't explain it. I refuse to believe that people can be that evil.

[Paul McEnery]

You know, I think about this this way sometimes.

All the signs seem to point in that direction. Like how defence industry stock is always a good buy. I stopped keeping honeywell just because my guilt couldn't take it. Or Eurest.

I know what Von Clauswitz said. It's just... I can't explain it. I refuse to believe that people can be that evil.

Let me help you with that.

It's not a matter of belief.

[SOGG]

Let me help you with that.

It's not a matter of belief.

No, I get it. Intellectually, I get it.

It's just... the amount of despair associated with believing something like that is a bit overwhelming.

[Paul McEnery]

No, I get it. Intellectually, I get it.

It's just... the amount of despair associated with believing something like that is a bit overwhelming.

Eh. It's just entropy in action. Some people just don't have the energy it takes to be compassionate and imaginative, so they kill people for money instead.

Best to be aware of it and not vote them into power. It's the decent people shutting their eyes to it that bothers me.

[J. Robb]

It's the decent people shutting their eyes to it that bothers me.
Me too. A 16 year-old starlet's pregnancy is seen as greater cause for outrage.

[Adam C]

And since we invaded do you care to lay out any estimate about how many Iraqui civilians have been killed or maimed?

Well since you brought it up:

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78


In the week in which General Patraeus reports back to US Congress on the impact the recent ‘surge’ is having in Iraq, a new poll reveals that more than 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have been murdered since the invasion took place in 2003.

Previous estimates, most noticeably the one published in the Lancet in October 2006, suggested almost half this number (654,965 deaths).
These findings come from a poll released today by ORB, the British polling agency that has been tracking public opinion in Iraq since 2005. In conjunction with their Iraqi fieldwork agency a representative sample of 1,499 adults aged 18+ answered the following question:-

QHow many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (ie as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof.

None 78%
One 16%
Two 5%
Three 1%
Four or more 0.002%

Given that from the 2005 census there are a total of 4,050,597 households this data suggests a total of 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003. Calculating the affect from the margin of error we believe that the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063

Interesting. Now the Lancet study is the conservative estimate. Additionally, the ORB also did a survey that found only 26% of Iraqis preferred life under Saddam (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=67) in spite of the violence and this is mostly confirmed by a follow-up survey (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=72). So it's not as though they're coming at this with a significant bias agianst the war (at least not any detectable one).

[Charles RB]

I sincerly hope that poll is inaccurate and overestimating.

[Charles RB]

EDIT: I hoped twice!

[Shellhead]

Well since you brought it up:

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78



Interesting. Now the Lancet study is the conservative estimate. Additionally, the ORB also did a survey that found only 26% of Iraqis preferred life under Saddam (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=67) in spite of the violence and this is mostly confirmed by a follow-up survey (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=72). So it's not as though they're coming at this with a significant bias agianst the war (at least not any detectable one).

The methodology of that poll analysis is pretty weak. I didn't see any mention of basic demographic information, like average household size. A disproportionate number of families that fled into an adjacent country probably had lost family members, and families that were completely wiped out were obviously not responding to the poll. And two of the three provinces not surveyed were excluded for security reasons, meaning that there was still a high level of ongoing violence there.

[(A)//(E)]

my roommates guard unit just got activated to ship out in june, he has a prior 2-years-non-deployable contract with USArmy that he's gonna forfeit because he wants the money and he's already done a couple tours there.
Apparently he's signing me as his beneficiary in case of death (yeah we'll see about that) because he wants me to go to school, and his family is wealthy without it.
he said he wasnt allowed to tell any more than that, save for Guard units are still being called up for active duty.
also, how am i gonna pay for this apartment when he's off overseas? ... ... ><

[cactusmaac]

Well since you brought it up:

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78



Interesting. Now the Lancet study is the conservative estimate. Additionally, the ORB also did a survey that found only 26% of Iraqis preferred life under Saddam (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=67) in spite of the violence and this is mostly confirmed by a follow-up survey (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=72). So it's not as though they're coming at this with a significant bias agianst the war (at least not any detectable one).

Middle Eastern families tend to be very extended and it's likely different households reported the same fatality. Not sure if that was accounted for by the polling extrapolation.

[Adam C]

Middle Eastern families tend to be very extended and it's likely different households reported the same fatality. Not sure if that was accounted for by the polling extrapolation.

Well in the article information I that excerpted the poll specifically stated that the question was asking members of the household who were actually living under that roof. I don't know if that would still be affected by the nature of Middle Eastern families, but did the poll did try to account for such ambiguities in the questioning.


The methodology of that poll analysis is pretty weak. I didn't see any mention of basic demographic information, like average household size. A disproportionate number of families that fled into an adjacent country probably had lost family members, and families that were completely wiped out were obviously not responding to the poll. And two of the three provinces not surveyed were excluded for security reasons, meaning that there was still a high level of ongoing violence there.

Well what I posted was the very condensed version. Unfortunately I forgot to include a link to the page with links to the fuller versions. (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=88) In particular they have the actual data and questions (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/New%20Casualty%20Tabs.pdf) up in PDF form. (Sorry about that. Not linking to the proper data when it's available does no one any favours.) Scrolling through it on page 13 it starts asking how many of the interviewees neighbours living on the street had left since the conflict began and on page 16 it asks how many people are now living in this household. And there's some weighting variables at the end. Granted I still don't know how the final calculations were done and how or if those matters were factored into the final tally. (Or does it change the fact that a million dead is still a million dead?)

[Adam C]

Also in the interests of fairness, Cactusmaac posted this on YABS recently in response to my posting of the ORB study. The WHO in conjunction with the Iraqi government has done its own study on the matter and come up with significantly lower estimates:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010902793.html?hpid=topnews


A new survey estimates that 151,000 Iraqis died from violence in the three years following the U.S.-led invasion of the country. Roughly 9 out of 10 of those deaths were a consequence of U.S. military operations, insurgent attacks and sectarian warfare.

The survey, conducted by the Iraqi government and the World Health Organization, also found a 60 percent increase in nonviolent deaths -- from such causes as childhood infections and kidney failure -- during the period. The results, which will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine at the end of the month, are the latest of several widely divergent and controversial estimates of mortality attributed to the Iraq war.

The three-year toll of violent deaths calculated in the survey is one-quarter the size of that found in a smaller survey by Iraqi and Johns Hopkins University researchers published in the journal Lancet in 2006.

Both teams used the same method -- a random sample of houses throughout the country. For the new study, however, surveyors visited 23 times as many places and interviewed five times as many households. Surveyors also got more outside supervision in the recent study; that wasn't possible in the spring of 2006 when the Johns Hopkins survey was conducted.

The full article, also deals with the difficulties of calculating the death toll on page 2. Interestingly enough though it mentions that the Iraqi healthy ministry has strict instructions not to give out the detailed casualty numbers that does have.

[Adam C]

Also I found the actual results for the WHO survey online at the New England Journal of Medicine's website:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0707782


Results Interviewers visited 89.4% of 1086 household clusters during the study period; the household response rate was 96.2%. From January 2002 through June 2006, there were 1325 reported deaths. After adjustment for missing clusters, the overall rate of death per 1000 person-years was 5.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.89 to 5.77); the estimated rate of violence-related death was 1.09 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.50). When underreporting was taken into account, the rate of violence-related death was estimated to be 1.67 (95% uncertainty range, 1.24 to 2.30). This rate translates into an estimated number of violent deaths of 151,000 (95% uncertainty range, 104,000 to 223,000) from March 2003 through June 2006.

On comparing these estimates it should be important to note that the WHO/IHFS both are reporting death due to violence. ORB also is estimating violent deaths. The Lancet survey was examining total deaths, not just due to violence, but causes like degraded infrastructure, lack of health-care, etc. It estimated a total of 654,965 deaths, 601,027 of which were due to violence. (And in 92% of cases respondents were able to present a death certificate.)

[Abomination]

President Bush today said that if we pull out of Iraq, Al-qada would regain their footholds and qucikly gain new ones, which would be disastrous to the
WORLD'S ECONOMY!

Five years ago, if you mentioned that the war was about oil or the economy, you would be called unpatriotic. Now the truth finally comes out!


In lighter news, when Cheney was told that two-thirds of the country were now against the war, he responded, "So!"

How these two guys are still running around free, I'll never know!

[Michael P]

President Bush today said that if we pull out of Iraq, Al-qada would regain their footholds and qucikly gain new ones, which would be disastrous to the
WORLD'S ECONOMY!

Five years ago, if you mentioned that the war was about oil or the economy, you would be called unpatriotic. Now the truth finally comes out!

Actually, it's probably got nothing to do with telling the truth for once, and everything to do with the fact that the economy is what people are frightened about now. If the threat of terrorist attack is no longer an effective scare tactic, switch to something that is.

[Abomination]

Actually, it's probably got nothing to do with telling the truth for once, and everything to do with the fact that the economy is what people are frightened about now. If the threat of terrorist attack is no longer an effective scare tactic, switch to something that is.

I agree. But you got to admit, after all the different reasons we've been given for going over there and then for staying. It's hilarious, and a bit ironic, that it finally got around to being the reason that the "traitorous liberals" said it was all along.

[JeffreyWKramer]

The reality, of course, is that the war in Iraq itself is disastrous to the economy, and will continue to be so for several decades.

To quote the US Army's mental health services' own data, as cited on NPR recently: one in five personnel deployed in this war has developed serious psychiatric conditions to date, and when you look only at those who have had multiple deployments (an ever-rising percentage) the numbers rise to one in 3.

Think about that. We aren't talking homesickness or feeling a little bummed. We're talking about things like PTSD and suicidal depression. We're talking 20&#37; of these folk having conditions that warrant psychiatric care.

Think what would happen if someone put a product on the market that produced psychiatric illness in 20% of those using the product, and then look at the fact that this Administration's actions are producing that same result.

Toss in those psychiatric numbers with the numbers of disabling physical injuries, brain injuries, etc. and you're talking about an awful lot of lost work potential, an awful lot of medical needs, etc. Toss in the emotional and economic impact this will have on families, and the burden it will place on already-underfunded health systems and it looks even worse.

And keep in mind, I'm only talking about the US numbers here. The numbers of dead, disabled, psychiatrically ill and fucked-over-in-general Iraqis are much, much greater, although in fairness one has to note that they're doing some of that to themselves.

Then there's the financial cost of the war itself, and how little we can afford that at a time when the US government is finding it has to get involved in backing risky investments in order to keep the whole financial system from crashing.

I find it astonishing that anyone at all still regards the war in Iraq as anything other than a huge mistake and a huge waste, given those sorts of costs.

[Michael P]

You make an interesting point, Jeff. Makes me wonder if there have been any studies on how much the similar fallout of Vietnam contributed to the recession of the '70s.

[JeffreyWKramer]

You make an interesting point, Jeff. Makes me wonder if there have been any studies on how much the similar fallout of Vietnam contributed to the recession of the '70s.

I'm not aware of any such study, but that doesn't mean much, as I'm not much of an econ guy. I do know, however, that psychiatric and substance abuse treatment for Vietnam-era vets imposes a cost on the VA that is very much disproportionate to their numbers, and the expenditure is expected to just get worse as that group ages.

I do expect the current situation to have much worse economic effects, though, if only because bad a job as the government is currently doing at getting needed services to the injured personnel, they're still doing - and spending - a lot more than was spent on the Vietnam vets at that time. But when one looks at how many Vietnam-era personnel are still getting treated for war-related conditions, and then looks at just the at-this-moment projections for rates of difficulties among Iraq personnel (forget what those numbers are going to be by the time this whole wasteful endeavor ends) and projects what sort of long-term costs treatment of this war's personnel is going to entail... well, it ain't a pretty picture.

The reality is that there's no way on earth the VA is going to be able to meet these demands. There aren't nearly enough psychiatrists, neurologists, social workers, etc. in the system, and we're already seeing the VAs contracting out some of these services to public hospitals and outpatient clinics in some places with particularly large numbers of returning veterans. Hell, most of the US is already severely under-served by psychiatrists (the Iowa numbers, of needing approximately1/3 more psychiatrists to meet just the current demands are fairly typical of the nationwide numbers), and this is with the VA recruiting as many as they can from other countries. It's just going to get worse when one adds increasing numbers of returning veterans to the already-overburdened systems.

Of course, this assumes that the Administration eventually lets more personnel return, rather than just continuing to deploy them until they're all dead. Perhaps that's one of the Administration's projected cost-saving strategies.

I expect we'll soon see a move from the Adminstration to private-contract a lot of VA operations to Halliburton or some other corrupt group of corrupt, war-profiteering crooks. After all, what would be more natural for this Administration than to try to give the people that lost, wasted and outright stole hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money that was supposed to be spent on military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq the opportunity to simultaneously rip off both the taxpayers and veterans on an ongoing basis?

[king mob]

President Bush today said that if we pull out of Iraq, Al-qada would regain their footholds and qucikly gain new ones, which would be disastrous to the
WORLD'S ECONOMY!

''Look over there, yes that's right look away from the mess I've made of the economy. Look at the evildoers repossessing your houses''.

[Gordon Smith]

Apparently, the American military in Iraq (it isn't clear yet which service will actually handle the case) intends to try (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23966817/) a civilian contractor by court-martial for what I guess would be considered a felony assault. If I understand the charge sheet properly, it's an offense punishable by three years confinement. It should make for some interesting case law.

[Adam C]

After a long hiatus I decided to resurrect this rather than spam the Comm board with a new Iraq thread, though the news is relevant...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm



BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions
By Jane Corbin
BBC News

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering

While George Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

Also rather relevant is the following... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7416253.stm)


US spending in Iraq ignored rules

An audit of some $8bn (£4bn) paid to US and Iraqi contractors has found that almost every payment failed to comply with US laws aimed at preventing fraud.

In one instance, $11m was paid to a US company without any record of what goods or services were provided, the US defence department audit said.

US spending of another $1.8bn in seized Iraqi assets was also poorly handled.

The findings, covering the period from 2001 to 2006, will fuel anti-war Democrats' claims of mismanagement.

They accuse the Bush administration of relying too heavily on contractors to run the Iraq war and paying too little attention to problems of corruption and fraud.

So if there was any hope of this invasion actually making Iraq better it's moved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it never could given the way things were run. The occupation just wasn't short-sighted in its lack of troops of and plans for post-war security, but was fundamentally corrupt from the start and the Bush administration has done everything to prevent follow-up or punishing of such corruption.

And yes, unsurprisingly Halliburton has been the main beneficiary of all this.

[Michael P]

Offered without commentary: Final Salute (http://cfapp2.rockymountainnews.com/slideshow/slideshow.cfm?type=DEFAULT&ID=041706fs&NUM=1)

[J. Robb]

After a long hiatus I decided to resurrect this rather than spam the Comm board with a new Iraq thread, though the news is relevant...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm



Also rather relevant is the following... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7416253.stm)
It's funny that the best source for US news is non-US sites. Americans might be surprised to find out that there was a movement in Congress to impeach the president!