U.S. troops in Baghdad take softer approach

Indeed.  The farce behind the success of the "Surge" was the $300 per month paid to the 100,000 members of the Sons of Iraq.  Now we've paid and armed a gigantic Sunni militia that the Shiite government has no control over.  The political idea of paying your enemy not to kill your soldiers is pretty novel.  Why didn't we try paying the Nazi's or VietCong....same thing as far as I can tell.

Remember, the two men in the White House, one from Texas and one from Wyoming, both playing "Cowboy foreign policy", not caring what it costs in blood or money, so long as "evil is confronted". It also explains the foreign policy in Eastern Europe, which ignited the Russian invasion of Georgia. That is only a taste of what was to come if the other cowboy from Arizona and the cowgirl from Alaska had been elected. Ponder my words carefully and you'll see that I am right on the money.

toolkien.....This "Iraq thing" has been "strung out" to the limit by the Bush/Cheney regime. It's time to close the book on this nonsense and bring the troops home or send them to Ahfganistan where the REAL enemy is located. While we are at it, we should send the war criminals to prison where they belong.

And who is the real enemy?  Al Qeada?  Hezzbolah?  Hamas?  Islamic Jihad?  Irananian Revolutionary Guard?  Al Aqsa?  The only way to defeat the enemy is to create an environment they cannot thrive in. They thrive on obtaining recruits who live a hopeless lifestyle.  If those State Sponsors are elminated and Middle East countries move into the 20th century, and become Nationalistic rather than Tribalistic, maybe these organizations become extinct. Bush made many mistakes, but there are lessons to be learned.

The main lesson is don't ignore them.  Understand their history and plan accordingly.  They are real, and they hate us for what we have accomplished.  If we ignore them they will come after us or our allies.  The strategy needs to be adjusted, but I believe it has to be proactive. 

The main lesson is to not fund a totalitairan megalomaniac so that he will war on his neighbor who kicked our boy to the curb, then watch him use the chemical weapons we provided him with on a minority in his own country, then go to a popular war to shove him back into his own country when he thinks invading his OTHER neighbor who we AREN'T mad at is a good idea, then a decade later try to take him out, knowing that it will destabilize not only that country but the entire region.

I can understand why you didn't get that lesson Lar.  We KNEW all that (President Bush Sr. knew that) during the first Gulf War, and that's a long time to remember something so tricky.

But you should have known that the people who attacked us weren't in Iraq and weren't from Iraq.  Despite what President Bush Jr. and VP Cheney kept saying, we did pretty much know that.  The whole time.

Great posts, Roland and crossfire, thank you.  Iraq is never going to make us look like the good guys, but hopefully we can get out without doing much more damage, and concentrate on Afghanistan, where we should have been paying attention the whole time.

So it was OK thatSaddam had and used WMD's but not on us?

So it was OK that Saddam gave $25K to Palestinian suicide bombers?

I fully agree that this country has made huge mistakes in funding the wrong guys like Saddam, OBL, we have to learn from our mistakes.  I am sure we will make more.  I see the world as a better place with freedom in Iraq, rather than a murderous genocidal dictator. 

Saddam gave $25K to Palestinian suicide bombers

so i hear, how bout the US taxpayor giving Billions to Israel including Jets, bombs, tanks, helicoptors..........

Who's the real terrorists? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Auk9nKanOM

Look past the OBVIOUS government and media bias, and I think ALOT of Americans would change their mind about things in the Holy Land. 

So you are saying it is OK to fund suicide bombers who blow up themselves to kill civilians at cafes and pizza parlors, and the US is wrong for funding a Democracy in the Middle East that has been attacked numerous times, given land back to those attackers, and left territories it won in a defensive war, only to have those territories continue to bomb civilians???

It was ok with us for a LOT of years, in case you didn't notice, Lar.  We gave him the ability to buy chemical components for WMD, what we didn't just give or sell him, and we kept our mouths shut while he went after the Kurds--which if I recall was not what we had told them we would do.  We encouraged them to stand up for themselves, and they actually thought we would support them if they did.  Oops.

No, it was not "OK", but the solution was not to invade and occupy a country that had not attacked us, that we don't have the right, the resources, or the intellect at the top to control.  Guess what?  There ISN'T enough of any of those things for us to control the entire world. 

Guess what else?  Someone HAD attacked us, and we didn't care enough to take care of that.  

Invading Iraq wasn't just immoral and unwise because they hadn't attacked us and we couldn't control the situation after we caused it.  We couldn't keep our eye on the ball long enough to take out the ones who had attacked us, before we went haring off to Iraq and glory--and over 5 years later we are bleeding $10 billion a month that we don't have and STILL not taking care of the business of protecting US.  Unless you like the idea of sacrificing a steady stream of military over there "so we don't have to fight them HERE."  If that immorality looks good to you, there isn't anything I can say.

President Bush Sr. did NOT push into Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein because we had no international support to do so, AND because everyone knew what would happen if we took out their infrastructure and their strongman.  This was not a secret at the time--we knew THEN.  And it's come down exactly as we knew it would--except for a few idealogues in the Administration who actually believe we can import our idea of democracy and impose it on countries that are culturally nothing like us. 

Do you think we have learned from our mistakes?  Do you believe we will think it over before we fund and arm the next dictator or faux-democratically elected strongman to fight people we don't like but can't fight ourselves?  Do you believe we won't fund people with very different cultures, worldviews and agendas because they can be a serious thorn in the side of our "enemies", or that we will keep our eye on the situation after we set it in motion, or give it a hard push so that we don't end up eventually being on the receiving end of their hatred and their agenda?

I think freedom in Iraq would be great, but the families of the thousands of kidnapped academics and medical professionals aren't experiencing "freedom".  They have lost their breadwinners, or their life savings to get them back.

The women who tended just a little toward Western ideals of equality under a secular, but dangerous government who have been convinced to cover up according to Islamic rules by seeing other women beaten, even killed for refusing to dress according to Islamic law--they aren't experiencing freedom.

The thousands of Iraqi refugees who have poured into Jordan and other Muslim countries to escape the violence that has decimated their families in "free" Iraq, but aren't permitted to work and aren't eligible for much in the way of food or medical aid--not loving "freedom".

The people who didn't have the $$ to get out of Iraq, and didn't get killed by militias or government ministry soldiers are dealing with iffy electric and medical services, water and gas in short and uncertain supply, lack of jobs (amazing how a civil war dries up local businesses), and some of them have all the fun of dealing with insurgents and the soldiers going after them.  Maybe some of them are enjoying "freedom", but the impression I get is that many, surprisingly (?), are not.  Which might be why the majority of Iraqis have been wanting us out of there for some time now--can you believe it?  They hold us responsible.

One murderous, genocidal dictator is not directing the violence now, but rival governmental ministries (initially "democratically" elected) are shooting it out in the streets (and government buildings), disappearing civilians who are the wrong faction of Islam, and are not accountable to anyone we know of for the havoc they wreak, the murders they commit.

And we don't have $10 billion a month to continue our part in all this.  What happens after we leave?  More "freedom"?

I would love to believe that the world is a better place because of anything we have done regarding Iraq.  But pinning it on the assurance that it has to be, because we brought them "freedom" just doesn't work when we didn't.  And we won't.

as long as they blow each other up who cares

how can you call an apartheid state a democracy?

Israel is NOT a democracy, it is a Jewish State........ Non Jews do not have the same rights and privileges........ how is that a democracy?

I don't condone suicide bombers, but I see it as no more a crime as dropping a 1000 lb bomb (us paid) from a fighter jet (us paid) to carry out an extra-judicial assassinations. are those the actions of a democracy?

Don't white wash the history of Israel, they have a lot of blood on their hands.  It is a state the was born from Jewish extremist terrorism (king david hotel bombing), and has grown by land theft at the barrel of a gun(again us paid).

Israel is a state that hides under Americas political, military, and public opinion cover.  

America is controlled by AIPAC, that's NO LONGER A SECRET!

What about the USS Liberty, Israel is our friend on her terms.

hadenough: Do you think it is that cut and dried, one side right, one side wrong in Israel?  I can't see it.  Whatever the Israelis have done that is unjust, immoral--terrorist (and yes, I am aware of some of that) this is a situation where BOTH sides can point to something every day that threatens their lives, livelihoods, property, quality of life, even, that goes directly back to the other side. 

Lar: You seem to be very hung up on what is ok for everyone else.  I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.  I don't have to believe it is "OK" for some other country or faction to do what they do...in order to think that we shouldn't invade them, occupy them, or to think that we should control them.  There are not OK things done very day and that doesn't mean (to me) that we should go in and raise hell.  Especially if we can't control it once we do, and can't afford to get it right (my definition would be more peaceful, safer, any kind of secure, any kind of STABLE.)  It might not even mean (to me) that we should try to control the situation by funding one side against the other, stir up trouble between neighbors (as we did with Iraq and Iran), or just generally mix in where we aren't willing to put our name on what we do, or take any kind of responsibility for what is done with what we've provided.

I promise you, there is an awful lot that this administration has done that is so far from OK (with me) that they aren't even in the same time zone.  But if some other country decided we needed to be liberated from that (and I truly believe we do) even I (old, female, gimpy) would be standing between our President and anyone who thought he needed to be taken down.  (Which is why we aren't only feeding our military to terrorists in Iraq, we grew a whole insurgency.)

I'm an American.  I want to know that what MY government is doing is ok, hold it responsible for what it does in my name, and hold myself responsible, too.  I don't want to try to control countries or people on the other side of the world by secretly funding their dictators or their neighbors dictators.  Or by openly funding them without holding them to the rule of law just like the ones they struggle with.  We can't make those decisions for everyone else and get it right.  We've proved that over and over again.  What we can do is concern ourselves with doing what is ok.  With keeping ourselves strong, stable and viable.  With being a good example of what makes for a successful government, instead of the biggest bully and hypocrite on the block.

As I have STATED before WHERE IS THE LOVE HERE FOR EACH OTHER? America needs to

get it's act togehter at Home first...it can not because it is too busy interferring into the

the AFFAIRS of other Countries...Truthfully the other countries ned to SOLVE their oWN

ISSUES...what ever they do RIGHT OR WRONG is their Business...Where were the other

Countries when it came to OUR CIVIL WAR and SLAVERY ISSUES....Oh I Know Minding

their own Business...When this country was preforming AUTOCRACIES of it's own

AGAINST IT'S OWN PEOPLE, NO ONE INTERFERRED and that is how it should be with

Iraq and the Middle East.

Lar,

We supplied Saddam with WMDs to use on his enemy who happened to not like.  So, yes at the time it was ok as long as they were not used against us.  They were used to put down a revolt within his country.  Was it extreme?  Yes, but thats not the reason we went to war with Iraq.  If we were so rightuoues and hard feelins about it...we would of thrown down on Sadam the minute after it happened.  Was it ok that Saddam gave money to suicide bombers?  Morally it wasn't.  Do other nations in that region do the same thing?  Probably yes.  Are the palestineans suicide bombers blowing up malls in america?  No.  Sounds like a problem for isareal.  Are we to go after every evil genocidal dictator in the world or do we wage wars against the ones we know we can beat and have resoursces that peak our interest?

I think that this is not the sole responsibility of the military, nor is this responsibility solely that of the military.   The combination of military and intelligence, coupled with support from our allies,  is what it takes.  The other big mistke Bush made was pissing off our allies. The war on terrorism is unlike past wars.  Once Saddam's "army" was gone, there never was a real threat of such past battles. 

Hopefully the US will not try to maintain itself as it is today.  Probably not, though.  It will take a long economic failure and many military defeats to make a society as decadent as this to change its course from greed and bullying/credit and invasion,to a less imperial stature-just as it did Rome,and etc.

I agree that the main threat is terrorism.  The question is, would a free and democratic Iraq, start the process of eliminating the breeding ground for terrorism.  Nobody knows the answer, it is conjecture.

The other question is whether we wait for terrorists to attack us, or do we go after them.  This is a new war for the US, the answers are unclear.  It is now up to Obama to figure it out.  He is intelligent  He has already said he will continue efforts in Pakistan/Afghanistan.

Agreed.  Why do we have members of our Armed Forces organizing peace rallies?  Are you kidding me?  Isn't this something the State Department or UN should be taking care of?  But that assumes there is some coherent plan in Iraq.....lest I forget Bush is still in office and the "Decider" has decided to hand this off to the Obama administration.  The only plan at this point is get out of office through the back door of the White House.

Lar:

The main "breading grounds" for the terrorists are not in Iraq.  Allot of the terrorists have had some type of US training, but the ones involved in 911 were from Saudi Arabia for the most part.    

The point is that a free Iraq and Afghanistan could spread a more civilized and modern society, which would lead to less negative views towards the West.  They hate the West because of our way of life and their feeling of helplessness.  Yes, 9/11 was not carried out by Iraqi's.  Never said it was. 

We won't win the "war" in a battle.  We have to change the ideology.

They hate the West because of our way of life and their feeling of helplessness.

They hate us because of our freedom?  Can someone who is actually aware of where we put our money say something like that with a straight face?

I think they hate us because our way of life seems to include imposing it everywhere we get the chance--IF we think it will benefit US--on people who don't see the benefit of it, and who can't actually believe we are doing it for their benefit.  We expect to profit by importing our ideology.  When we profit by funding their religious or secular DICTATORS that is what we do.  We don't have some perceived unshakeable loyalty to "democracy."  And that doesn't actually change their ideology.

Maybe they will hate us less now that we have no money and can't afford to fund every bloody dictator we think will serve our interests, or invade and occupy the countries of the last dictators we funded, who are not, after all, serving our interests.

Or maybe, not trusting that we have changed our ways, only our financial status, they will figure this is the time to show us all of the hatred they have for what we have already done.  When we don't have all the resources we had before we started bleeding our Treasury to invade and occupy a country that didn't attack us.

I can see it going either way.

Dharma Girl.  I really liked your post above 6.10.  Things aren't cut and dry.  But 9.5 sounds like you think we are the bad guys.  Really, we took our enemies from WWII and helped create 2 very strong economies from ruins.  We still have troops in both countries, no one seems to complain.  Yes, we are "imposing" freedom on the Iraqis.  I can think of worse things.  the point is, we are the good guys, we have done some bad things, we are not perfect, but we ARE the good guys. It bothers me that people in this country don't believe it.  There are differences of opinion, that's what makes us great.  I don't see that underlying theme of the "good guys" in many of these posts.  Do you?

Lar:  I really liked some of your posts, too.  There are things we disagree on. 

When we do unethical, immoral things, when people we don't like or don't care about die and other people--who are somewhat in control--profit by what we do, I don't think we get to call ourselves the good guys. 

I think if you want to stake out the moral high ground you are required to do something differently than the bad guys.  Good guys don't invade countries that haven't attacked them, knowing what they are going to unleash on the civilian population.  And we knew.

We were mixing in and profiting in World War II before we entered it--that didn't make us the good guys.  But there is a huge difference between entering a world war by going after a country (and their allies) that ATTACKED us and what we did in Iraq.  I hope you don't think we didn't have a LOT to gain by helping create strong economies in our former enemies.  Not only did our businesses profit, but some of us really believed that a Hitler would never have had a chance in a Germany that hadn't been so badly treated after World War I.  Some of us believed we could not let that happen again after World War II.  (And I am surprised that you think "no one seems to complain" because we still have troops in both countries--but that is another issue.)

We disagree on two counts about "imposing freedom". 

First: Freedom can't be imposed, it requires a struggle on the part of those who want it more than life itself.  Like many Americans, I have several Revolutionary War ancestors.  They fought for freedom (there were religious divides, too, but they--at least the ones who survived--could actually aspire to be free, and to remain free.  From an oppressive government across the water, and from the government they created after the Revolution.  Rival Ministry militias in Iraq (who were elected and appointed on our watch) are shooting it out in the streets.  They are not giving up their lives for freedom, they are killing and dying for sectarian loyalties and hatreds and PROFIT.  The people who are giving up their lives for freedom are trying to be free of US.  The people we "liberated" are being oppressed by rival religious factions that some of them agree with, but others do not. That doesn't make us the good guys.  But worse,

Even if you could GIVE freedom to Iraq we haven't done that.  And we won't.  At this point, the best we can do is try to limit the amount of damage that WE do to the people we "liberated."  We can't stop (and haven't tried to stop) the extra-legal kidnappings and executions of civilians carried out by various militias and Ministries.  We haven't tried to assist the flood of refugees living illegally in neighboring countries after losing family members to the sectarian violence, or entrepeneurial kidnappings of professional people that we permitted to take the place of "murderous, genocidal" Saddam Hussein.  And now we are seeing that we can't even afford to continue the level of engagement that we have now, not doing any of those things.

I am not really sure there are worse things than what we have done.  Couching it as imposing freedom is meaningless to me unless there is freedom, or even could be freedom.  You say that, but I don't see it.  The Iraqis I have talked with, or read about don't seem to feel that have given or we are giving them freedom.  The majority wanted us out ages ago.  Do you think they don't want "freedom"?  I think what they don't want is what we have given them that is NOT freedom.

If you think the point is that we are the good guys, I think you are being sidetracked, and that you can do better.  This isn't a religious matter.  You can't find "the flag" and then be "saved" no matter what you do, or permit to be done in your name.  As a country, we will be known by our works.  And when we do bad things, we will be hated for them.

What we do matters.  The consequences of what we do matter.  What our motives are matters.  Do you think corporations with strong ties to the current administration aren't profiting by our actions?  This has been a HUGE redistribution of taxpayer dollars (and now BORROWED dollars the taxpayers are on the hook for) to large corporations.  That doesn't make us the good guys either, and that makes most of us fools to allow it.

I don't expect you to agree with me, since I can't agree with you that we are the good guys no matter what we do.  I am sorry that you can actually be distracted by something that I think is really beside the point (we're number one!), and even to the point that you see things that aren't there (we are "imposing freedom!"), in my opinion.  But two things we have in common:

I WANT us to be the good guys every bit as much as you do; and

I believe in what we say we stand for, what our ancestors (spiritual, if not actual) recorded that they fought for, and that includes the freedom to disagree.

Thank you for responding.  Be well.

Lar,

I think we are the good people...its our goverment thats doing evil things around the world.  It only takes a handful of bad apples to make us all look bad.

I agree, injecting abortion, gay rights and gun control into the political mix makes us take our eye off the ball.  We should have the freedom to get an abortion, own a gun, marry who ever we want,  Get the government out of these issues and let people have some privacy.

Economics and security are the issues that we should focus on.

I think as a people we argure over the moderation of those issues.  I am for a women's right to choose but not as a means of birth control.  My right to bear arms is non negotiable but who the hell needs a fully automatic assault rifle or full auto hand gun with a 20+ round clip.  The gay rights issue is a civil rights issue plain and simple.

Toolkien.....You state that MSNBC et all "have been tearing apart  Bush and the Repubs over Iraq for several years." This is as it should be. The war was a phony war from day one and Obama said it was in not so many words. We had no business going in there and we certainly had no business staying there as long as we have. We're "doing nice" now because our troops are staying in the safe zones and not going out on patrols. Obama was right way back then and he's right now. It's time to wrap it up and get the hell out of there.

No system exists independently of the people who run it!  Systems are actually defined by the reality of the people who run them.  Read some history.

Edwin:

I think you are the one who doesn't get it.

They had a dictatorship that we funded and supported because Saddam did some of our dirty work by engaging Iran when they had the nerve to throw our guy out on his butt.  That dictatorship didn't FALL--we invaded and occupied their country--we destroyed that dictatorship.  Also, their Army, police force, infrastructure (what was left of it after a decade of sanctions), economy, and the only shreds of security they had.

We showed them what "democracy" could do?  Was that when we made sure they had a series of elections where they voted for--well, they didn't know who, because those who were running couldn't afford to have their names on the ballots; politicians who ran for office were getting assassinated, or their family members were, to discourage them.  Was that what "democracy" could do? Cos who wouldn't want that?

Some people think what we have here isn't working, what with a "democratically" elected government that, for instance, doesn't want to secure our borders, had no interest in getting out of a war that the majority of American's thought was a bad idea, at least if we weren't winning and were going bankrupt losing, decided that if the economy was tanking, we'd better borrow money the taxpayers can pay back later to bail out BANKS but not homeowners suffering from that tanked economy...hey, maybe someone will try to invade and occupy US, and that would be a good thing.  Oh, wait, it wouldn't.  I don't know anyone, Far Left (like me) to Radical Right who wouldn't defend our country from that.  Hell, I bet that snivelling clown Rush would pick up whatever he had handy to protect us from invasion, to resist an occupation. 

Invading someone else's country is not a sound way to change their view of your intentions. 

Whipping up an insurgency to resist your occupation and then killing them doesn't endear you to their mothers, children, siblings, parents.

Trying to control things from behind a safe zone wall while all hell breaks loose on the people you "liberated" doesn't necessarily make them happy. 

And when their slightly more affluent family members flee the country to get away from the shooting, become refugees in neighboring countries that do not welcome them...that doesn't either. 

Or when the insurgency blows their fathers, husbands, children away trying to get US out of THEIR country.  They could be pretty mad at the ones who set the explosives.  But they aren't going to forget why it was done.

Politicians here can't be broken, corrupt, or even incompetent without our permission.  "Democracy" would look a lot better to people who saw us cleaning our own house before we started invading and occupying theirs.

thank you for putting it into perspective.............

If this did happen in America and bombs went off at markets and schools and killed Americans, would you believe it was the American Insurgency responsible?

...........  or the foreign forces creating chaos to justify the occupation?

TSYN...EXCELLENT

In my book you get the Green Star for the Post of the Year...Because it is just that

CUT and DRY...Game Over...End of Story.

TSyn, I understand what you are saying and I agree with you. The question that needs to be asked is why haven't these soldiers been arrested and tried for their crimes? I know the answer to this question but many people do not.

I think any foreign invader of the United States would be able to occupy our country for only a short time for two reasons. Number one, Americans have an abundance of guns and other weapons and are more than willing to use them. Number two, if for some reason these weapons were confiscated Americans have the knowledge and machinery available (in their homes and/or garages) to produce more of them.

You obviously have not been there, TSyn.

What if you were not allowed to return to your home until it had been thoroughly

inspected?...and you had the Occupiers right outside your door watching your every move 

Twist and Turn?...and your Power was rationed out as well as other aspects of your day

to day living?...Then what?..What if the able Bodied men were not allowed to gather or group together?

I agree Conservative Democrat.  An armed society will not be taken over.  Look at what happened with Afghanistan & Russia.  Why haven't we done better in Afghanistan?  Just my opinion............

"It's nothing but a pile of rocks and opium plantations."....and terrorist training camps. 

Well, it used to be anyway.