It has been an ugly past couple of weeks in Iraq. According to officials, the surging violence and hostage taking by armed Guerilla fighters represents only a small minority of Iraq. According to Bush, our military is rapidly responding to the threats. I have to disagree, I think the response is too slow; to make matters worse, the problem in Iraq is just a fraction of the threat. Iran in particular, was emboldened by the removal of Hussein. Now that Hussein is gone, Iran has a huge stake in what happens to Iraq, obviously, Iran wants to end all this western style democracy nonsense.

The Iranian regime is a hard line Islamic government developing nuclear weapons with Russian support. How long will it be until the US will be forced to war with Iran? Speaking of Russian support, even notice how every insurgant appears with a shiny new Russian RPG launcher? Iran has been posturing for a war with the United States since 1979.What is going to happen with North Korea, a regime lead by an ego maniacal dictator who is threatening to use nuclear weapons? If Iraqi freedom is any indication of our ability to rapidly react, and react decisively, the last two weeks would indicate that we can falter. The right call in Fallujah would have been to interrupt that bridge scene with AC-130 gun ships spraying liberal amounts of machine gun rakings, to make matters worse, the response came a week later, and now Marines are being held back in the middle of that response, halted from advancing on the Sunni enemy with a cease fire. I hate the thought of war and people getting killed, but if the US effort is to be successful then the US is going to have to show decisive victory and control over the Sunni Triangle, If they are not going to go through with it 100% pack our men up and bring them home.

I have noticed a Napoleonic quality to US response, the pitched battles and long pauses. Ironically it was Napoleons quick battlefield decisions that eventually made him emperor of France.

I don’t think a situation like Fallujah or the convoy attack can sit for a week without response. The term response is unfortunate enough to begin with. The term response indicates military forces on defense. A real time counterattack is necessary to crush the momentum and morale of the enemy.

So, Anthony, am I uspposed to sit my 11 year old down and read all this to her?

It's this kind if idealistic claptrap that pisses me off.

I had written a whole bunch more, but none of it was very nice so I deleted it. I'll save it for later and for someone more deserving of my wrath than you.

I thought you were asking about the recent violence in Iraq and what I thought about it, so I replied. You can attack me if you like because I am out numbered. The sentence in your blog was broken; it left out information about who “Shea” was. I re-read it along with your reply and now I understand.

The US is now in a very difficult situation. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, believing they knew better than the generals, went in with a much smaller force than was recommended. We now see that there are a significant number conflicts developing which a larger force may have been able to control but which have now gotten out of hand. The occupying force has managed to bring about it's worst nightmare a unification of the Sunnis and Shiites against a common enemy. The hawks in government believed that the Iraqi population would see them as saviours for getting rid of Saddam but this was never going to be enough. After all, we are not talking about a united country here but a collection of areas that are split along ethnic and religious lines. The only thing keeping them in check, until last year, was a brutal dictator. Now he has been removed some of these groups are starting to flex their muscles. And, by embedding themselves in the general population, the militants are forcing the US to move against that population. This will only turn popular opinion, already suspicious of US motives, against them. The sight of a fully armed combat soldier kicking down your neighbours door or aircraft bombing the local Mosque is not going to win the hearts and minds of the locals. Some have called Iraq George Bush's Vietnam. I dont think you can say that, but one comparison seems clear to me: a huge factor in Vietnam was that the US lost the support of the Vietnamese population because the Viet Cong used the same tactic of infiltrating the general population, forcing the US army to deal harshly with all locals as they could not tell friend from foe. The same situation is developing in Iraq. I have heard some Americans say that the US should just pull out, but if they do the country will almost certainly descend into civil war as Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds turn against each other trying to fill the power vacuum. And, if civil war does happen, the conflict will not stay within the borders of Iraq but spread to other areas of the Middle East, a frightening scenario and one the US cannot and will not allow to happen. (The inplications for Israel would be unthinkable to the US as well as the threat to oil supplies.)
I dont know what the answer is but then I was never for invading in the first place, Saddam was being kept well in check and there was another more important battle to fight - al Qaeda. Whatever happens, dont expect the troops home soon.

I understand that we have removed the infrastructure of government there, and because we, the US, removed that structure we feel we are obligated to help build another one. This all goes back to the US acting as the 'World's Policeman'...an ideal I'm not sure I agree with, then again I'm hardly well versed in world politics.

My point in writing this article was that the war, this conflict, has now walked right up on my porch and knocked at my front door. It's no longer an ideal, a theory to be discussed among polite (and sometimes not so polite) company over tea and biscuits. It's real, tangible now. I can't ignore it anymore. I don't like that.

Shea is an 11 year old somewhat precocious girl. Her statement last night, whilst childlike in it's simplicity, made a lot of sense.

Oh, and Jamie...I can't see the image that you posted. Sorry.

Yeah. I guess that the link broke down. It worked at first! Here it is again.

Cheers.

But seriously: what a mess.

It baffles me how the folks in charge of the US thought that they could just walk into Iraq and be greeted as heroes.

With the way that the winds are blowing now, it seems like the US troops will leave (sooner than later,) and then the Iraqis will get to sort everything out by themselves. Sounds like a recipe for civil war and religious infighting.

I'd bet that the end result will be worse than what it was before. Maybe a new Taliban?

Good replies. Left to their own thoughts, Americans can see the reality of their Presidents' decisions.

Personally, I support immediate withdrawal from Iraq. the reason for going was bogus, the dictator is removed, there are no WMD. I've said before, as far as I'm concerned they can beat each other over the head with baseball bats and call it an election. I do not care what the Iraqi people do from now on, unless it is shoot at or terrorize Americans. Either nuke em or get out.

The daily worries of tens of thousands of our youths' relatives and friends are not worth the whole nation of Iraq being allowed to use 'Diebold' machines to vote in rigged elections of the puppet regime we are propping up. Bring our troops home and do it NOW I say.

As to the 'Vietnamization' spoken of, I know of the historical meaning used. I use it in the context of American opinion that war waged on foreign soil for reasons un-related to our national security, is not popular and of no worthy time, life, or investment. This is Bush's Vietnam and he is failing in the polls not because of Bin laden or Saddam, but his inability to lead us in this endeavor. He just ain't the one for this time and place in history - at least helping us dig out of this quagmire around the globe he's gotten us into.

Here here, Wahkonta. We did what we set out to do, so now it's time to come home. Why are we there? What are we gaining economically that causes us to stay there? We're so obviously not wanted there, and, as was pointed out in a previous post, the different Iraqi factions are going to end up unifying against the American presence. I don't think that we have the numbers or the manning necessary to do the job properly; it's going to be a half-assed attempt that has, and will continue to cost American lives.

Read before you get angry with me, please.

I was against the war. Bad timing, misleading. It was the wrong war at the wrong time. We cannot, cannot, cannot just LEAVE though. It's not just about being the 'world's policeman.' There is a lesson that has been learned time and time again...most notably with Germany just before the Third Reich. That is...once a country with any national identity has been beaten, they must not be held in poverty, and there must not be a vaccuum of power there. Instead, we must shape, control, and fund the rebuilding procedure. This is especially true with Iraq -- it is a big enough country, with tons of natural resources, many educated, hard working people, etc. In short...you add insult to injury with a country like this, in a matter of one decade they can threaten the security of, not just their region, but a large portion of the globe.

It is wrong for us to be there, but we're there. I've got a billion relatives and friends over there, and I hate it every day. But we have to stay the course. Does that mean we have to continue on BUsh's plan? No. Not at all. We should all vote for whoever runs against the man, actually. The administration has failed to understand the international as well as geopolitical consequences of invading Iraq for fallacious reasons. This, mark my word, has been the worst mistake the US government has ever made, and we will pay the price for generations to come. But that doesn't mean we should leave, letting the rich country of Iraq fall under control of a dictator. Fascism is not dead, ladies and gentlemen, it is just sleeping (on George W. Bush's couch.)

D

I did read, and I'm not angry. I agree with what you said too, as odd as that may seem. I WANT our guys to come home...I WANT the US to get the fuck out of there...but what I want and what's practical and the right thing to do are often two different things. I understand, as I said, that we've gone in and removed the dictatorship and we are therefore obligated to stay and help rebuild. I simply think that the US went about it in a half-assed manner, and now it's costing us.

Dharma,
I think it is interesting that you ask a philosophical and almost religious question by a wise child and you got political answers. The only thing that I can see is that life is unfair and because it is unfair, people with power can do what they want and children lose their daddies and mommies. Even though life is unfair, there are people who love and care for children and those children who lose their daddies or mommies will be loved and comforted. Life should be fair. But its not. The other thing you can tell her is that if the soldiers stay longer then maybe some Iraqi children will not lose their parents to civil war. This however is a big maybe.

Good point, Sherye.

I think Shea's question was more political than it was anything else. She wanted to know why the US was in Iraq in the first place. We had another conversation this monring that invloved my showing and telling her what conditions were like in Iraq before Saddam was removed, and she's a little more understanding of they why's and wherefore's now. She also said that if she could vote she'd never vote for Bush....

...does anyone have any news websites that are sutiable for teens/pre teen kids? I'm at a loss...she's old enough to have a rudimentary grasp of the politics involved but too young for adult news sites.