Lugar on Iraq: More troops, delay: Sen. Richard Lugar says we need to send more troops to Iraq and delay handover. I agree. Handing Iraq over to terrorists and thugs gets Iraq and us nowhere.
Looks like the rebels are taking Bassora, and there are fights in Baghdad.
So, when the majority of the population fights againts the US troops, what it is, a terrorist attack or a large scale uprising against an unwanted invader?
These thugs aren’t the majority, they support an opportunist…the mans’ father was a revered leader in Iraq who was murdered, the git is using that for his own ends.
If Bush is smart, he’ll reverse course and do what Lugar says before Kerry endorses the idea.
Giordano: The riots in Iraq are due to a Shiite cleric that wants to establish himself as leader; he wants nothing to do with democracy. I cannot think of one conflict that the US has ever been involved in, including the present one, that involved a “large scale uprising against an unwanted invader.” Usually, as in this case, it is a single enemy or a small group that has designs of their own and they want to move the US out of the way so they can get on with it.
In al Sadr’s case, his followers are in the minority of Iraqi Shias. He is causing trouble precisely to move the US out of the way so that he can seize more power than he could get by submitting to a popular election. In other words, he is trying to punch above his weight, and allowing him to do so would doom democracy in Iraq. To hold the pop-Marxist view of imperialism versus “hurling out the invaders” is to ignore all of the salient details. And yet this is the prevalent view coming from the left of the war on terror. It’s time to purchase a new prescription of eyeglasses.
Lugar — and you guys — are missing a point: there aren’t any more troops. The US military is pretty much fully engaged.
That said, the conclusion we need more troops isn’t very rational either: in this kind of war, adding more troops simply makes the environment target-rich. What does make a difference is good intelligence, and that won’t come with more troops, along with forceful action when needed, and — at least so far — there are plenty of troops for this.
In general, when the flag ranks aren’t asking for more troops, but politicians out of the chain of command are, you should believe the flags.
Buzz, you say:
I cannot think of one conflict that the US has ever been involved in, including the present one, that involved a “large scale uprising against an unwanted invader.”
So in Vietnam there were only “a few terrorists and thugs”?
Sorry guys, but looks like Operation Bug Out and Declare Victory is on schedule. The adminstration has affirmed that June 30 is the day and it’s not changing.
From what I’m seeing on the news, that’s not a minority of the Shiite people, but an uprising in several cities. They’re showing thousand of people in the streets. And some Sunnite cities, like Falluja, are full of turmoil too.
Of course there were more than thugs and terrorists in Vietnam. But neither was it a large scale uprising. For one thing, there was significant logistical involvement from China, which was advancing its own geopolitcal interests in the area. Given the long negative history of Chinese involvement in the area, this begs the question: which invaders were the Vietnamese trying to expel? In the wake of French exit from Vietnam, there was a civil breakdown each side in Vietnam had local power brokers inviting involvement from the outside in order to advance their own causes. After the US abandonment of South Vietnam, the victors established concentration camps and instigated a flow of up to a million refugees fleeing the communist regime. It’s safe to assume that they wanted the Americans to stay.
I try to make the point not to open a debate about Vietnam, but because it is my belief that many people criticizing the war in Iraq today are by and large putting the same gloss on it that they routinely apply to Vietnam. That war had more complex dynamics than a simplistic struggle between indigenous peoples and foreign invaders, and so does Iraq. The parties causing trouble are the ones who are threatened by the onset of democracy because their leaders have calculated that they can’t garner enough electoral power for their tastes. In that view, they are doing everything they can to stop democracy from occurring, and that means primarily expelling the Americans. If we follow that line, then an American pullout will disasterous for everyone concerned, and support for such a pullout is equal to support for the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of more people.
I will admit that if you are already convinced of the alternative explanation, that it is a simple matter of “Yankees go home,” then of course an American exit would solve that problem. It is unfortunately not that simple, and an American exit would precipitate far worse problems as Iraq fell back into government by “crime family,” which is what we are trying to eliminate.
(On a side note, I did think of one such example conflict: the American Revolution!)
The American Revolution was also a civil war like Vietnam, with large numbers(perhaps a majority) trying to defend the rights of Englishmen by expelling British authority, and a large minority trying to preserve the rights of Englishmen by remaining loyal to British authority in America.
Read the Iraqi blogs. Iraqi’s know what is really going on and what is really at stake. There are a small minority of people, consisting of Saddam loyalits, foriegn terrorists, local clerics and general thug/murderers that are banding together to create mayhem so they can try and get control of the future government. It is not the “will of the people” as some are suggesting.
When we kill a few hundred of them, they’ll stop and peace will return.
The best part about is that the peaceful majority will be getting bigger as the violent ones get picked off.
Giordano, there are 22.6 million Iraqis. A few thugs, whose origins and funding may well not be Iraqi, and a few thousand(?) religious demonstrators, who may well be organized and funded by Iranian mullahs, do not constitute a groundswell of sentiment to remove American occupation. There is no logic or commonsense for Iraqis to throw the Americans out and leave a vacuum of chaos, then civil war, to fill. They aren’t that stupid. Although you would love to see Americans compromised, I can assure you that the vast majority of commonsense Iraqis don’t.
Mateo, what’s your point? And how does Vietnam fit the paradigm you rather carelessly describe?
“In general, when the flag ranks aren’t asking for more troops, but politicians out of the chain of command are, you should believe the flags.”
Wrong. IF you are a serving flag officer, you follow the lead of your civilian bosses. If the SecDef says no more troops, you either get with the program or find yourself relieved for cause.
Have we forgotten the fates of former Army CoS Shinseki and former Secretary of the Army White, both of whom publicly contradicted Rumsfeld on the number of troops required for post-war Iraq?
belloscm – I think there is a big diffference between the words “believe” and “obey”. And, don’t forget who the bosses of those “civilian bosses” are. They are we.
It would be foolish in the extreme to break the bond of trust with the Iraqi people and not hand over power on schedule. That would be handing veto power to the troublemakers and, as the Spaniards are painfully learning, once you accede to their blackmail, you might as well grab your ankles and ask for more, ’cause it’s on its way.
Two battalions of Marines [1200 men] and two battalions of Iraqi forces are taking on the Fallujah problem. I’m not sure the size of force taking on the young sheik problem.
However, there are plenty of maneuver brigades in Iraq. We don’t need more U.S. forces. Maybe more guys like the eight Blackhawk guys who fought off hundreds of Mahdi militia at Najaf CPA HQ.
Buy my new book and get clickable footnotes and links.
Buy my new Kindle Single on Amazon.
Now out in paperback!