What the Heck
USMC Vet
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,322
I'm not just saying that we should pretend nothing happened - if there was wrong doing, then yes, lets take a look at that (we could also look at the Gulf of Tonkin incident as well, but I digress). But the argument that says we shouldn't have gone to war because after the war we found out he didn't have the Weapons of Mass Destruction does not take into accout what the world believed before the war.ThAnswr said:It is very nice to think that we can just wipe the slate clean, pretend the past never happened, and just start looking to for "what do we do now"?
Here's your problem: to solve a problem, you have admit there was a problem. And no one in this administration is going to admit there is problem, there was a problem, and there's going to be a future problem.
There must be a half-dozen solutions of what we can do now that will go nowhere because this administration cannot admit a failure.
To reiterate, here's what I would do:
1) give the Iraqis 1 year to get their act together. Yes, the insurgency will use that one year, but so should the Iraqis. The Iraqis have to be made to understand that they have been given an opportunity few in Middle East ever get. Their fate is in their hand and if they squander that opportunity, they squandered themselves.
2) start airlifting Iraqis out of Iraq for basic training. It's obvious this "on-the-job-training" isn't working.
3) Indentify just who this insurgency is. Please, the idea that these are just "foreign fighters" is a crock. This is too well organized to be a group of Pakistani goat herders. It should be clear to anyone the insurgency is being fueled by the old Republican guard.
4) Secure the borders with Syria and Iran and that's going to require more troops.
I think that's good for a start. What do you think?
As for your points, I think there is something there that is worth discussion. I don't think we should go with number one, not just yet. Once we set a particular date, we become less flexible, and in this we need to be flexible.
I like number 2, but I don't see it ever happening, no matter who was in office. The Iraqi troops however, could use some training at some of our bases in the desert. We could send our trainers there to meet them.
As for number 3, I never got the impression they were "lone wolf's" or led by "Pakistani sheperds". They are part of a very serious terrorist outfit, one that wants to kill people to make them submit. Whether it's Al Queda or Zwhatshisname (however you spell his name, I'm not even going to try), although I don't think there are enough Old Guard to be doing it.
Regarding number 4, that is something we can definately agree on. As long as those borders are a sieve, they will keep getting more insurgents. I think it would be very difficult to do, but it would be worthwhile.