Many people disagreed with the invasion of Iraq, and no doubt most Americans are probably more ignorant about the world than some undiscovered natives of lost rain forests; a consequence of a dynamic insular society isolated from the world by geography. But the level of ignorance about foreign policy at the head of some members of the US political class is worrying.

It seems hard for outsiders to understand why leading contestants in the US 2008 elections such as Barak Obama are running on a ticket of giving the US another Vietman in Iraq and promising if elected to cut and run, deny the US a victory and leave the Iraqi people to a bloody fate at the hands of the enemy as the Democrats did in Vietnam.

One minute my heart is jumping with pride in those United States at the possiblilty of a first black president, and the next concerned that what we are seeing is the clothing of Martin Luther King being used as a fascade to hide attitudes which will lead to a slide in US world power and influence and a surrender to radical Islamism.

I hope not, the Senator is appealing and holds himself well, but is very opaque on policy and has shown himself poorly informed on foreign policy in the past.

Beware of candidates who tell you they will fix Washington, no President has ever done so and none will, because there are always people on either side of the isle who will ensure that social security, education and taxes will never be fixed.

The surge is working, the US are winning in Iraq, the British, the Italians and many others have surrendered, thrown in the towel and either gone home or hiding in convenient air bases ready to run. But the brave and idealistic men and women of the US have faced the bullets and bombs, done the dirty work, gone onto the streets and worked with the people and are now winning in Iraq.

Obama and Clinton and the more wobbly Republican candidates must make it clear that a victory for them is not a defeat in Iraq.

So what you learned from Vietnam is: we should have stayed the course? For how long?

What makes you think a Republican president will be able to stop the spread of an ideology better than Barack Obama? He'll kill more muslims? We saw how that worked out in Vietnam.

Saddam Hussein is dead. Iraq will not be able to develop WMD for decades ahead. Mission succesfull. Time for a large victory parade in Washington.

Duplicate threads merged

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Nice jab at American ignorance. Not all of us are...and a large amount disagree with the Iraq War white being fully informed. Or more often, because they're fully informed.

So, America should still be in Vietnam? As erikvv says, how long do we give Iraqi reconstruction? 100 more years okay with you? How long should Britain have stayed with their Palestinian mandate? Or your other colonies? Why did Britain "cut and run" from those territories, or Scotland? Due to ignorance?

Eh? So you base your initial pride in a candidate based on his race, then look at the issues? Obama's color means little to me (and he's not my favorite candidate.

Can't understand what you're saying here. Do you mean "Washington" needs fixing (if so what does that mean)? Or national policies need fixing (if so you're simply someone with an opinion that some particular ones should be fixed).

Well you need to take that advice yourself, with your pride being based first on race. Reasonable people look at issues.

Our troops, most at least, are brave and idealistic. Our government is belligerant and ideologically hypocritical. "appeal to brave troops" is a very poor argument.

Uh...no they don't. Most Americans are against the war. We've occupied Iraq for 4 years, that should have been enough time to get a working government. "Winning" doesn't mean occupying a state for eternity. In the case of US foreign policy (declared), the main goal was to oust Hussein and ensure Iraq had no WMDs. We still shouldn't have gone to war, but our main goals have been fulfilled. In the case of Iraq's health, it's best long-term if the US leaves it, as well as the entire Middle East.

True, but the invasion is over and it can generally be considered a success. The occupation on the other hand is another matter.

So either your lumping all Americans as of the continent together as being ignorant, or your calling most of the American citizens from the US ignorant. Either way, not a good way to start out a discussion. Insults will get you nowhere. Though I'm assuming you mean Americans as in American Citizens of the US as your referring to US policy/politics below, though just in case I've made an argument for both cases.



What exactly is that suppose to mean? America as in the United States is hardly isolated, there is Canada above directly, Mexico directly below and South America with several more countries below Mexico. Russia is only 58 miles off Alaska, Cuba is 90 miles from Florida, which countries consist of this world your talking about? Oh, and if your talking about the two continents of America, that makes even less sense.

More arrogance than ignorance I imagine, but I seriously doubt that the US is the only country to suffer from the problem of inapt politicians. I know I know, the US is the only country where it matters.

Iraq has hardly been mentioned in 2008 if at all, as the priorities have obviously shifted to the economy. That being said, we have two parties with two different views on the matter. Nothing is yet certain, check back in November.

The Democrats did what in Vietnam? As I remember it, it was a Republican that issued a cease fire and a Democrat before him who escalated the war. Of course, my memory is just foggy at times. That being said, how long should the US have stayed in Vietnam?



If we US citizens aren't skeptical by now of politicians, we deserve what we get. Though I don't think that is totally the case here. We'll see.


Winning Iraq? Iraq's stability is entirely dependent on the people who live there and are the only reason things are working in Iraq. You give the US military too much credit, because if the people of Iraq hadn't become fed up with all the violence a few more troops wouldn't have helped much. Besides, the main goal of the surge, a strong centralized government is still failed to appear (Or any kind of functional centralized government for that matter). Sure leaving Iraq now would be a mistake as we have the obligation to finish what we've started and especially if things are working, but lets not pretend the US hasn't made mistakes with Iraq beforehand.

What exactly do you mean by defeat? What do you mean by victory? Define both, then get back to me.

The US could have probably won Vietnam had they committed even more troops, and went with an all out invasion of the north. Instead of 60,000 US deaths the number would have been much higher, maybe double or triple. I'm just wondering what would the US have gained for itself? Vietnam is currently a communist country that is at peace and not threatening anyone. Why would you want to trade hundreds of thousands of US servicemen's lives for them to be a democracy? Thank GOD the US got out. Its too bad you didn't get out when there was only 4,000 deaths and saved 55,000 lives.

Now you are faced with exactly the same situation in Iraq. I think the choice is clear. Iraq will stabilize itself when the US leaves. The amount of bloodshed there will be cannot really get any worse anyways.

This surrender talk is a bunch of gibberish. You beat the enemy by removing its support from normal people, not with military force. Oh and BTW did Al Qaeda follow the Russians home after they left? No.

Um... Beslan?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

What about that school hostage crisis? I don't see the relevance here.

Your claim was that al Queda didn't follow the Russians home. Just pointing out that the Russians did face homicidal Islamic fanatics at home following AFG.

Not a direct causal relationship, of course.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

The Beslan siege was perpetrated by Chechen separatists who happen to be muslim. There is no relation between that and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. I'm surprised you are attempting to make such an obviously false correlation.

Thanks for your post which corrects many of the deficiencies at the head of mine which I ran out of time to edit.

Au contraire as to Iraq, but more further down.

As to victory I mean successfully handing Iraq over to the Iraqi people at a moment which guarantees them success and not failure due to a lack of the military resoursces necessary to take them forward as a democracy.

I am extremly optimistic about Iraq. The Anbar Awakening movement is now uniting Sunni and Shia. The granting of pensions to all former ba'athists and army personel is giving dignity back to many Sunnis and Sunni tribes who lost face after Saddams defeat. The scrapping of much of the punitive anti-baath laws is opening the doors of employment to distinguished Sunni professionals whom the economy greatly needs.

I dont think any of the American of European media understood the significance to the Sunni tribes of President Bush joining in a sword dance in the Gulf and swinging with it. The president has long-established influence with the tribes through his close family relationship with the Saudis. He sat down with the Awakening movement tribal leaders when he was in Iraq arranging their support for the US. A meeting sponsored by the Saudi king.

Thanks to the performance of one of histories greatest generals and the success of his anti-insurgency doctrine, and with the help of the Sunni tribes, al quaida are gradually being wiped off the map of Iraq.

What the US are doing in Anbar and other Sunni provinces is preparing the Sunnis to heavily compete in the next elections. Al Malachis people may fear that challenge, but only a healthy democratic competition between these groups can result in the vibrant and eventually non-sectarian democracy most Iraqis risked their lives to vote for.

With growing commerce and increasing peace I am confident that the second phase; bringing the whole country under the control of the center. will be carried out by the Iraqis quicker than people imagine.

defeat? cutting and running and undermining the democracy which we lost so much to establish. From my own pure neoconian perspective Iraq was esentially all about securing democratic ground in an area of the world rendered hopeless by dictatorships and in which growing Islamist radicalism posed an increasing existential threat to the US, her allies and the world.

I believe that a defeat for the US in Iraq would predicate failure for all our goals in the Middle East. Would lead to an International loss of confidence in the US. Many of our allies forced to form new and uncomfortable (for the US) alliances to protect themselves and a spiraling down of the US economy due to its vulnerability to increasing terrorism.

Even though I would call myself Republican I could see that Barak Obama could have a unique opportunity to build on the work of the President and Dr. Rice and 'win hearts and minds' abroad.He could develope new lateral thinking approaches to help move things forward in the ME. But he still has a war on his hands that began with the bombings of US embassies and the US Cole all those years ago.

I know the economy is going to be the issue, but I am certain that without success in Iraq the future of that ecomony is at stake.

Your posts are very well written and filled with intelligent arguments and lack partisan rhetoric. For that you have my respect even if I might disagree with you.

It is noble to want to free oppressed people and spread democracy around the world so you are correct in that assessment in my view. The problem is that I don't believe that was the true intention of the Bush administration, only a convenient fact that helped them convince the public to support the war.

The Bush admin will benefit from oil, security and arms contracts as a result of the invasion and this is what the invasion took place in Iraq and not Sudan, where the oppression was alot worse. The Iraqis will loose out on oil revenue (as evidenced by the oil bill Bush wants passed) and see Americans as oppressors stealing their country's riches and influencing their government. It is understandable that a person may fight against the USA for that reason.

Some may argue that loosing a bit of oil revenue in exchange for more production, no Saddam and a democracy isn't that bad of a deal. In fact I'd advise them to jump on that deal if were in that position. The problem is that Iraqis don't understand democracy, don't trust it, and don't trust the Americans so they don't want it. Consequently, many have gone to war to fight for their old lives back.

Had their been a real welcome party and Kuwait style outcome I'd say good on the Bush admin despite their greedy intent as the net result would have been positive. The net result has been negative and while like you said there is some progress, there really is no end in sight to the conflict as long as the USA is there. If the USA leaves, the Iraqis will kick the foreign fighters out of the country and after some infighting that is already been going on for some time, the country should settle down and things will improve. You may get an Iran style theocracy but in my opinion it is not worth more American lives to put a democracy in Iraq as I pointed out was the case in Vietnam.

By implementing a humble foreign policy, and regaining moral ground, the Islamic extremists will gradually have less places to hide, less sympathy from normal people and could then be exterminated through normal law enforcement means. They will be defeated by weapons far greater than guns and bombs and those are hearts and minds. It is the only way to defeat an enemy that is an ideology and not a country. If your enemy is North Korea then the answer lies with the military. If your enemy is an ideology then the answer is heats and minds.

I understand and respect your well thought out position but I do believe that the last five years may have demonstrated that its a bit optimistic.

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that stating that there was no direct causal relationship equates to "attempting to make such an obviously false correlation".



Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Your opinion, to me, seems to reflect the minority view in the U.K.

Your government has caved more quickly to public pressure to disengage from Iraq than has the U.S. government.

Why, in your opinion, is the majority of the U.S. and the majority of the U.K. (worldly as they are) wrong in wanting to end the Iraq War? And, conversely, what justifies your minority view?

__________________


Screw Change!! Let's have a Seamless Transition of Power and Policy.. John McSame in 2008!