6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I served 5 years my friend, in the early 90's; if I had given my life, my family would have considered it a personal loss, but they would have known i joined with open eyes, and would have been proud of my contribution. No one forced me to join, and when i swore my oath, i did not say "but if i die it is a loss" I did not want to die, i did not even want to go to bosnia (and thankfully didn't, my unit left 1 month after i pcs'd to the states) but it was my duty, and one i would have done if called upon. to ask that question demeans our soldiers and their families. No one person will consider a lost life a win in any situation. If a man goes to jail, his family will consider it a loss, but if it upholds our country's laws it may very well have been a win. No one family, when focused on their child/sibling/parent will consider a death a win, but they may see the it as a part of a greater truth, and gain strength and peace in that vision.

My friend, every loss is tragic, 9-11 was tragic, the kurds who were tossed in the mass graves were tragic, our soldiers sacrifice is tragic, but if in the end a government is formed that prevents any more mass grave, allows free participation in the political process, and provides for stability in the region then our families will look on their personal tragedy with a belief that it was not in vain.

very good post.

[saden1]

With respect to Iraq I'd love to see you add up your wins and losses.

Edit: I'd like to focus on Iraq.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by saden1

Have you ever wondered what one trillion dollars looks like?

That pic/diagram is pretty mind-blowing IMO...

While the current cost may sit around $1 trillion there's two larger points: 1) the ultimate cost, which factors in long-term veteran care costs and other things, at least according the the Nobel prize holder Stiglitz, will cost well over $3 trillion (The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More) 2) the opportunity cost is literally unfathomable and even under the best case scenario for Iraq I think it's very hard for an honest person to argue that is worth more than the betterment we could have seen domestically (i'm totally w/ Pat Buchanan on this one)

But i think more importantly people should realize Bush did little to nothing to turn things around in Iraq. The tide turned w/ the surge strategy of "clear, hold and build," which was devised by Gen. Jack Keane and implemented within state dept., almost in clandestine fashion, by Condi Rice. Rummy pushed hard against the idea initially and it was only Condi's somewhat devious tactics that got the strategy on the ground. Bush had little to do w/ that; however, as i think is totally expected of the conservative base a women, let alone a minority, was never going to get the credit.

FRONTLINE: endgame: watch online | PBS

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

With respect to Iraq I'd love to see you add up your wins and losses.

Edit: I'd like to focus on Iraq.

I really don't understand the question. Again, my point started in relation to the statement "can't we move on", if we are able to move on, and leave iraq be, certainly it would be a win, meaning no more major loss of life, troops eventually come home, etc etc. The fact is that iraq was a major negative day in and day out when bush was in office, and now suddenly we just move on?
(i am not asking for a glowing endorsement of a war, or that it was a perfectly run war - to keep with the sports analogy of earlier- maybe it was a 7 - 6 win and you hate the team that won, but they won. )

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by The Goat

... Bush had little to do w/ that; however, as i think is totally expected of the conservative base a women, let alone a minority, was never going to get the credit.

FRONTLINE: endgame: watch online | PBS

and as is to be expected by the vilify bush crowd - bush will never get credit. bush brought in condi, she was a close advisor to him, that he followed her advise is not a surprise nor even unexpected. it is a fallacy to portray her advice as uncredited, regardless of race or gender.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

and as is to be expected by the vilify bush crowd - bush will never get credit. bush brought in condi, she was a close advisor to him, that he followed her advise is not a surprise nor even unexpected. it is a fallacy to portray her advice as uncredited, regardless of race or gender.

Well be honest when's the last time you heard a right-winger, from Lush Bimbo on down to the local listener, give Condi credit for what happened?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I really don't understand the question. Again, my point started in relation to the statement "can't we move on", if we are able to move on, and leave iraq be, certainly it would be a win, meaning no more major loss of life, troops eventually come home, etc etc. The fact is that iraq was a major negative day in and day out when bush was in office, and now suddenly we just move on?
(i am not asking for a glowing endorsement of a war, or that it was a perfectly run war - to keep with the sports analogy of earlier- maybe it was a 7 - 6 win and you hate the team that won, but they won. )

Lets go with go with the sports analogy...say you're Zorn, it's the Monday after a tough win against the hated Cowboys. You break down game film and start rating the performance of the players, coaching, and the team. What battles did you win and what battles did you lose? Any injuries?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Well be honest when's the last time you heard a right-winger, from Lush Bimbo on down to the local listener, give Condi credit for what happened?

honestly, i'm so sick of politics, the only place I come close to listening/discussing it is here, and that is only because it is person to person kinda, not just political rhetoric for a national audience. I mean, I know I may not agree with Saden or DMek, but I believe that the discussion will be civil, and thoughtful.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Lets go with go with the sports analogy...say you're Zorn, it's the Monday after a tough win against the hated Cowboys. You break down game film and start rating the performance of the players, coaching, and the team. What battles did you win and what battles did you lose? Any injuries?

k, well first i'm glad you went with the home team getting the overall win, and that was what my comments were intended. I see the "W" as being a regime change that works for the betterment of both the international and iraq's national societies. The "W" means that no more kurds will be slaughtered, just because they are kurds. It means that no more chemical attacks will be conducted on iraqi civilians by their own government. (By the way if you want to compare for real purposes wouldn't iraq be better cast as the raiders? although with some of the players that dallas has had maybe it works) It means that women and children will not be tortured because of their husband/father's political or religious beliefs.

But it definitely was not a victory without cost:
America lost some of its best players - the corporals, the privates, and the 2lt's who make up the backbone of our armed forces.
We took a black eye for a personal foul call at Abu Ghirab(sp)
We overspent on old line equipment and new fangled rookie technologies, where the opponent was more like the buffalo bills(pre TO) and way under the financial cap by using cheap "expendable" players (suicide bombers, small IED's)


Here is the "game" breakdown (my apologies to GTripp for not being nearly as good as his):

In the 1st quarter it looked like a blowout, we rolled through their defensive line, took out the 1st string line and had their QB scrambling, and eventually he went down with a severe head injury.

In the 2nd and 3rd quarters, they started clawing back, negating our fast strike offense, with well timed offensive strikes. But our defense kept forcing them to settle for FG's( IED strikes, skirmishes). They made one strong attempt to get at the Green Zone, but were re-buffed and we established a solid defensive front.

Late in the 4th quarter our coach, encouraged on by asst head coach-offense (nicknamed "Condi" (Goat ref)) called for a strong ground game to pound it out and secure the win. By solidifying the political ground gains with a strong offensive surge, the game was nearly over when Dan Snyder (the american people) saw that the coach, along with vinny(the congress) ran roughshoud(sp) over the organization's internal structure and was so angry that he fired the coach with 2 minutes to go. The new coach came in and had his qb kneel down during the final two minutes and the win was official.

Battles won:
we took out their 1st line offense quickly, and did not let them use any devastating trick plays.
we took away homefield advantage, and actually got the crowd on our side (by putting political structures in place, opening the political process and ensuring no retaliation against opposing sects occurred (or minimized them when they did)
we reduced the effectiveness of their backup plans(ied's suicide bombers).

Battles lost:
politically we lost clout
financially we took a hit
our soldiers paid heavy emotional, psychological, and physical costs
but honestly, i don't see any as lost, just a lot harder fought then some people expected.

(i digress to politics for a minute, I remember early on Bush told the american people, that this war would not be easy, and it would go on for a long time- he was speaking of the process- not specifically of the land war and occupation of iraq - because commentators the world over were saying that america did not have the resolve to fight. We lost roughly 4000 good soldiers, the enemy talked of sending home 10s of thousands of american bodies, i have posted earlier, no lost life is a good life, but the enemy did not do what they wanted to do, we limited their ability to kill our soldiers, but once we set foot over there they were going to kill some of us. WWI had 10's of thousands dead in a single day, vietnam had nearly 60,000 american dead - 1.5 million total dead, war is not fun, it is not nice, the opponent is not without ability, we limited that ability. end of digression)

Coaching:
i would say game prep was good, hence the strong 1st quarter, but shallow, we did not anticipate and make in game adjustments very well. The coach relied to heavily on one coordinator, didn't listen soon enough to other assistants, and waited until the win was in jeopardy to change the strategy.

I would liken most of the press to JLC except instead of Danny being the hated entity it was the coach. They absolutely hated the coach, and any story they ran, even "positive" ones had slight, or not so slight, digs at him.

[JoeRedskin]

^^ Nicely done.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I served 5 years my friend, in the early 90's; if I had given my life, my family would have considered it a personal loss, but they would have known i joined with open eyes, and would have been proud of my contribution. No one forced me to join, and when i swore my oath, i did not say "but if i die it is a loss" I did not want to die, i did not even want to go to bosnia (and thankfully didn't, my unit left 1 month after i pcs'd to the states) but it was my duty, and one i would have done if called upon. to ask that question demeans our soldiers and their families. No one person will consider a lost life a win in any situation. If a man goes to jail, his family will consider it a loss, but if it upholds our country's laws it may very well have been a win. No one family, when focused on their child/sibling/parent will consider a death a win, but they may see the it as a part of a greater truth, and gain strength and peace in that vision.

My friend, every loss is tragic, 9-11 was tragic, the kurds who were tossed in the mass graves were tragic, our soldiers sacrifice is tragic, but if in the end a government is formed that prevents any more mass grave, allows free participation in the political process, and provides for stability in the region then our families will look on their personal tragedy with a belief that it was not in vain.

Okay, there are several statements here I profoundly disagree with. First of all, here's the question Americans must ALWAYS ask whenever our troops are sent into harms way: is this conflict worth the life of the person that I love most? Casually tossing around the notion that "we won" without considering the families of dead or injured soldiers is what's demeaning. Especially when you know that they died when Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the United States.

Secondly, comparing the death of a soldier in an armed conflict to a criminal who breaks the law and is sent to jail is truly disgusting and certainly not what I would expect to hear from a former serviceman.

Finally, what "greater truth" are you talking about? Is it the truth that politicians have been sending Americans to their deaths in unnecessary, unconstitutional conflicts for far too long? The truth that no American should have to die to support some other country's political process? How about the truth that stability in the Middle East was shaken, not enhanced by our presence in Iraq?

Here's the real truth -- Iraq was not worth the life of ONE SINGLE AMERICAN.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

"The "W" means that no more kurds will be slaughtered, just because they are kurds. It means that no more chemical attacks will be conducted on iraqi civilians by their own government."

It might have been better if the United States government hadn't sold those chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in the first place.

[CRedskinsRule]

Beemnseven, i agree about the chemical weapons. i respectfully disagree with the rest. and i guess it's why i get aggravated with political discussions. Often times people, including me, use diversions or ignore valid points to distract the argument, here are a few examples:

Okay, there are several statements here I profoundly disagree with. First of all, here's the question Americans must ALWAYS ask whenever our troops are sent into harms way: is this conflict worth the life of the person that I love most? Casually tossing around the notion that "we won" without considering the families of dead or injured soldiers is what's demeaning. Especially when you know that they died when Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the United States.

distraction 1 - make the question fit your view, don't look at the view of the writer. it's fine to put a new question out there, but my post was not addressing that question, I think going back in time, the american people clearly supported going to war, once that decision was made (and here people will distract with WMDs talk, but again I am saying once the decision was made).

Secondly, comparing the death of a soldier in an armed conflict to a criminal who breaks the law and is sent to jail is truly disgusting and certainly not what I would expect to hear from a former serviceman.

distraction 2: change the context of the statement, or take it out of context, and maybe i wasn't clear enough; I was not comparing the soldier who dies in battle to the man goes to jail, i compared the family's feeling of loss. That is no less tragic, and yes i know families who have felt that type of loss.

Finally, what "greater truth" are you talking about? Is it the truth that politicians have been sending Americans to their deaths in unnecessary, unconstitutional conflicts for far too long? The truth that no American should have to die to support some other country's political process? How about the truth that stability in the Middle East was shaken, not enhanced by our presence in Iraq?

distraction 3: cherry picking lines here is my quote:

but they may see the it as a part of a greater truth, and gain strength and peace in that vision.

I indicated that the families may find solice by seeing a greater truth, it is not really my, or your, place to say what a family who lost a loved one finds that peace in as each may be different

Here's the real truth -- Iraq was not worth the life of ONE SINGLE AMERICAN.

distraction 4: layout as real a truth that is clearly a personal opinion. I don't argue that you believe that iraq was not worth a single american life, but i think i could find equally passionate americans who differ in that view.

with all that, i respect your opinions, i understand you passionately believe them, and they have merit in and of themselves. we just disagree.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Okay, there are several statements here I profoundly disagree with. First of all, here's the question Americans must ALWAYS ask whenever our troops are sent into harms way: is this conflict worth the life of the person that I love most? Casually tossing around the notion that "we won" without considering the families of dead or injured soldiers is what's demeaning. Especially when you know that they died when Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the United States.

Secondly, comparing the death of a soldier in an armed conflict to a criminal who breaks the law and is sent to jail is truly disgusting and certainly not what I would expect to hear from a former serviceman.

Finally, what "greater truth" are you talking about? Is it the truth that politicians have been sending Americans to their deaths in unnecessary, unconstitutional conflicts for far too long? The truth that no American should have to die to support some other country's political process? How about the truth that stability in the Middle East was shaken, not enhanced by our presence in Iraq?

Here's the real truth -- Iraq was not worth the life of ONE SINGLE AMERICAN.

I think you hit the nail on the head Beem and here's why: when we look at Iraq or any war from that perspective things become crystal clear. I cannot count how many times i've been at parties, family gatherings or just typical conversations while someone carries on about the greatness of the war. I always ask whether they encouraged their son, daughter, brother, sister to sign up. It's actually pretty fascinating to see the response... nobody ever says yes. Nobody. If I'm feeling a bit grouchy i ask whether they would have encouraged it during WWII... some people are honest and say they get the idea but then again some just get f'n peeved. My favorite incident was a relative who berates anyone not supportive of Bush and Iraq. When I mentioned the military was really short on good soldiers and his oldest son would be a perfect fit his wife literally went rigid w/ terror... and he finally stopped w/ all the speeches.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I think you hit the nail on the head Beem and here's why: when we look at Iraq or any war from that perspective things become crystal clear. I cannot count how many times i've been at parties, family gatherings or just typical conversations while someone carries on about the greatness of the war. I always ask whether they encouraged their son, daughter, brother, sister to sign up. It's actually pretty fascinating to see the response... nobody ever says yes. Nobody. If I'm feeling a bit grouchy i ask whether they would have encouraged it during WWII... some people are honest and say they get the idea but then again some just get f'n peeved. My favorite incident was a relative who berates anyone not supportive of Bush and Iraq. When I mentioned the military was really short on good soldiers and his oldest son would be a perfect fit his wife literally went rigid w/ terror... and he finally stopped w/ all the speeches.

I know exactly what you mean -- lots of Americans seem to be warhawks as long as somebody else's loved one has to fight.