Can we talk about President Bush's new Iraq strategy?

I didn't watch his address last night and the only blurp I heard on the news this morning was about him sending 20,000+ more soldiers. Honeslty we have t odo something. We aren't getting anywhere right now. We are responsible for what is happening there now and we need to fix what we have broken. But that is just MO.

We need to bring our troops home. I am ashamed to say I voted for Bush twice. What I was thinking?

They keeping talking about "winning the war" on the television...... Well, we are actually not in a war. We bombed a country who had done nothing to us and we are occupying them attempting to change their government for the sake of oil. That is basically in a nutshell what Bush is doing.

Winning or losing is not why we are there. Not in the true sense of winning.

I think this is horrible. I'm not sure if I am a reformed republician after the Bush administration but I am anti-bush at this point...

I will say during the next presidential election, I will vote democrate or independent. I think there are many republicians who will do the same.

I have so many more thoughts on this but I will leave it at this for now.

Bush saying we have broken something is merely another way to get the american people to agree with his latest plans. Every time before he has sent troops, he always has said somethintg similiar. He has to have a reason.

The only reason our troops are being killed "is because we are there".... This is a country that has NEVER attacked us.. Never... This country had nothing to do with Bin Ladden or helping Bin Ladden during the 911 attack.

He talked about in his speech that mistakes have been made and he is responsible for them. That is a fact.... He chose to occupy a country. He bombed a country that had never bombed us or acted aggressive toward us. Does he honestly think more killing will fix this? The only way, even if he loses face, is to bring them home.



Jenn

I don't think it was a wise decision to have gone to war when we did, and especially when we were going without UN backing. But we did. It doesn't make one bit of difference at this point that anyone thinks that was wrong, because it's too late to change it. It happened. We went into a country and yanked their leader out, resulting in complete and utter chaos. I know that I am probably the only one who feels this way, but I am putting my trust in Bush that he make this right. He made a mistake, yes, and it is up to him as our President to see us through. I don't feel that we can simply bring our troops home right now. Wouldn't that make us tyrants of some sort.. Having gone in and captured a country's leader, making all sorts of promises, only to pull out when we knew their leader was dead and had no chance of coming back to power? I hate to see our troops over there, just as everyone else does. But we need to make this thing right.

Edited to add: I feel that it is sad when people are ashamed of who they voted for. At the time of placing the vote, hopefully, you made an educated decision based on who you thought would be best at running our country. You should never be ashamed of that decision.

I didn't catch the address last night either but have been listening to the debate on the radio this morning.

I'm not adverse to sending in more troops if there is a clearly defined objective for them. I remember Colin Powell during the first Gulf War beating it into the public's head about not going to a war without specific goals and objectives. I didn't hear that when this war started nor have I heard it since. The criticism that I heard this morning was to this point. Why send in more troops when we don't have specific goals to bring stability into the region. It appears that it is just more policing efforts, which isn't going to accomplish anything within a civil war.

The concern right now is that with Iraq in its state of disarray that it is, could ally with Iran and that would just be bad for us on numerous levels if that did happen. If that did happen, then not only would Iran have Iraq on their side, they would also be able to gain Syria as an ally, and a bunch of other countries that surround that area.

One guy stated on the radio yesterday (which made sense) is that 20K troops are not enough to send. We should be sending more...otherwise we're just sending more people to their death. With more we wouldn't have as many casualties.

At this point, IMO we're really in the middle of all of this and I would actually fear what would happen to the U.S. if we pulled out now. Yes, I didn't like the original idea of going to war, BUT we're so far into this that we can't just pull out. If that did happen, I would be willing to bet that we would see more deaths to Americans...and possible Iran following us home for war.

Sending more troops will not work. A question was posed by the world: could Iraqis live under a quasi-democratic form of government, and live in peace with each other, respecting others who do not believe exactly as they do. Sunni's, Shiites, and Kurds alike. The answer is categorically "NO". Personally I see this not as a failure in America's policy, but a failure of this Muslim culture to act civilized and not as they did in 800 AD.

We removed their maniacal leader in a matter of weeks, oversaw elections and the formation of a govt. What has happened was not the Iraqi people joining together to take advantage of the gift of human freedom; rather barbarism, tribalism, murder and mayhem is what they would rather engage in. Is that America's fault??? Hell no!!! Personally I would get out of there now and not spend another penny, or shed another ounce of American blood on such ignorant, foolish and violent people.

The war was wrong, committing our troops was wrong, committing MORE of our troops is wrong and will NOT work.

We need to bring out boys and girls home, let the Iraqi's do what they want and mind our own business.

The only reason that this war was started was so that George Jr, could "clear" his dad's name. It was basically for the Bush's ego's. 3,000 dead and counting.

I wouldn't trust Bush if he said the sky was blue. He can never make this right. He is responsible for more American deaths than the 911 terrorists (which had nothing to do with Iraq anyway) I highly doubt more troops will fix anything, but I don't know what will either. When this whole thing started, some people said it would be like Vietnam. But all big wigs said they were crazy--it would never be like Vietnam. Those big wigs were right. This could end up even worse.

And why can't people be ashamed? That man has single handedly ruined our country's reputation in the world. And they impeached Clinton for fooling around with an intern!!!! Give me a break.

Everyone has made some good points. What I really have missed though is this: How does one come to think that sending more armed american troops into Iraq will "settle down" the iraqis? I think it is more likely that if the extra troops arrive, you will see more resistance to the occupation. Keep in mind that long before Bush decided to pick on Sadaam again (reasonably or not) Iraqis killed eachother in the streets over religion etc. The lack of peace among Iraqis was never *because* of Sadaam, and is not as simple as anger at America (though that has made this type of violence in Iraq increase recently). Putting more "enemies" (and no doubt Iraqis see Americans as enemies) in those streets can only lead to more death and heartache.
At the same time, lets say US pulled OUT all their troops, I think the civil war etc that would occur in Iraq would be much much more devastating than anything that might have happened with Saddam still there. Though Americans are dying unfairly, they have put a lot of innocent Iraqi citizens at risk, and yes, I do feel America has a responsibility to protect those people they have recklessly , without justice or reason, put in harms way.
Hard decision...

But wouldn't the largely Shia part be annexed by Iran at some point? Turkey, with its Kurdish separatists, also wouldn't be happy about having an independent Kurdistan in its backyard. And I suppose Syria would "have" to step in and "protect" the remaining Sunnis.

A little aside, but American foreign policy is not a popularity contest. If you think there is any country in the world (besides Britain) that wants to see America suceedd in anything, you are quite wrong. Thus our "reputation" amongst other countries in the world that wish us ill as a nation is meaningless. We cannot be guided by the opinions of dictatorships, and corrupt socialist and democracies when we act in what we believe to be out national interests.

Also, Clinton was not impeached for receiving oral sex from an intern, as disgraceful as that conduct was for the married leader of the mightiest nation on Earth. He was impeached for committing perjury, and suborning of perjury, the same offenses for which he was also disbarred by the State Bar of Arkansas. Thus, with all due respect, your analogy fails.

So because Bush just lied to get us into a war that shouldn't have happened its ok. How many people died because Clinton lied?? I know. Bush wasn't under oath. His lies just led to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, never mind the soldiers from the other countries he bullied into joining us or the Iraqi citizens who have since been killed. So I guess I should trust him to get us out of this mess he created. If he wants to send 20,000 more troops, I think he should be at the front of the line on the front lines.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Very OT but I couldn't resist. Really the mightiest nation on Earth?!
But back to it. I think that if they'd just said that Saddam has killed thousands of people, so we think we should stop him, arrest him etc then it would have been fine in my book. The lies were really not needed. Now that we've All gone in and messed things up I don't think that sending 20,000 more people to wave guns and bark orders at the iraqi people is going to help matters. I don't know what will, but fortunatly its not my job to.

Bush had an agenda, and it had nothing to do with the good of the American people, it had to do with something his dad should have finished a long time ago. I firmly believe that is why we are over there now. Evident too because one of the first things the military did after taking the palace was to destroy the flooring in the front lobby that was a large portrait of Bush Senior that people had been tromping across for years. There are many dictators and sadistic rulers in the world, Saddam was just another one of them.

Well, Bush doesn't seem to know, either. The U.S. already has c. 121,000 troops in Iraq, and the situation is . Sending 20,000 more, and calling it a "surge", is like offering a band-aid to somebody whose arm has just been torn off. Bush and Rumsfeld mismanaged (not just) this war, and Iraq as a whole, from the very beginning, and it looks like "nobody can put Humpty Dumpty back together again".
Think about it - Afghanistan's Taliban harbored al Queda, and practically no progress is being made there. The U.S. has about 18,000 troops in a country that can conceivably be blamed for 9/11, yet most of our troops are tied down in another country that didn't have anything to do with it, and didn't present a direct threat to the U.S. before the invasion. Now there's a civil war there, the country has become a "training ground" for terrorists, over 3,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed, and Bush supposedly has a "solution"?

"Bush lied" is a nice popular mantra among the Liberal set, but you will not present a shred of proof to substantiate the claim. Nobody has yet, and not for lack of trying. I have had this discussion a million times, but I guess 1 more won't hurt. If Bush supposedly lied, then I guess the following people and entitities and countries did too, because they ALL believed that Saddam had WMD's. >>> John Kerry, Al Gore, Barney Franks, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Jason Rockefeller (and of course the rest of the democrats who voted in favor of the war); Britain, Germany, China, Russia, Spain, and of course the corrupt United Nations. There are many many many more that can be added to this list, but you get the drift Im sure.

Not to mention that if you accept the idea that George Bush is a patriot, as I accept the idea that Bill Clinton is, despite his impeachment.....why on this Earth would George Bush LIE to get our country into a war that would certainly cause thousands of American casualties????

First, happy to see a post by you again. Hope all is going well for you.

Second I just want to take issue with the statement that GWB just wanted to finish his Dad's unfinished business. I recall during the first Iraq war that our ONLY mandate was to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. It was upon this narrow mission, that GHWB was able to put together such an unusual coalition of countries to support that action. Although the Bush Sr. admin thought about continuing their march straight into Baghdad they decided against it knowing that their fragile coalition would crumble if they did. Thus there was nothing about the 1991 war that was left unfinished; we accomplished the goal that was set forth in the United Nations Resolutions, nothing more and nothing less. In short GWB's only "agenda" was to protect our country, in a post 9-11 world from a perceived threat that much of the rest of the world perceived as well, and a threat that Saddam did everything he could to perpetuate, though it may have been a myth. We will never know.

I think it's terrible that Bush is sending in more troops.

Having said that I fully support the troops, it's not their fault that they are being sent there.

So we should have invaded a nation because the leader had killed thousands of its citizens?!? We are not the world police. By now it should be apparent that in Iraq, we acted in what we believed was our national security, and our national interests. Your argument is absurd. It wasnt alright for Bush to act although he thought Saddam might proliferate WMD's to other countries or terrorists (which could cause millions of American deaths), but it IS alright to invade if we just dont like what he is doing to his citizens, as foul as it may be, even if it has no bearing on our national security???? You sure you stand by that?? Thats a novel argument that I havent even heard from John Kerry yet.

And BTW, yes, the mightiest nation on Earth, absolutely. Not perfect by any means, but the closest to it the world has ever seen. Most charitable, most religious, most democratic, strongest military etc. If not for America, you'd be speaking German or Japanese. It is a shame if you're an american citizen, that you dont feel that way too.

We are making the same mistakes that the Europeans made in that part of the world. We have no real understanding of the region and we are trying to fix it with our mindset which is not the same as the mindset of the people in that region. We need to stay out of the Muslim world's business as far as how they run their own affairs. We had no choice as far as Afghanistan goes and had we remained focused on things there I think things would be much different there. The people there had lived under a brutal theocracy long enough and had been completely broken, they were ready for some kind of positive change.

Your post simply stupefies me. Have you actually read the 9/11 Commission's report? The UN's conclusions regarding WMDs in Iraq? The statements of (often ex-) U.S. generals regarding U.S. policy in Iraq?
From what I've gathered, you're roughly my age (I'm 49), so you probably also grew up with the Vietnam War, with its >59,000 KIAs. What was achieved there? Don't you get a sense of, "been there before?"
Reading new IMO posts this evening, and yesterday evening, has been a really surreal experience for me. On the one hand, there have been posts accusing Al Gore of having a partisan agenda re global warming, while many of the same posters won't countenance any criticism of Bush. So who's being partisan? Wouldn't it be better to be realistic?
IMO, Bush has been the worst president in recent times. Eisenhower was president when I was born, and I have no memory of him. I do remember every president since Kennedy, who was assassinated when I was 6. Bush Jr. has certainly been a dark chapter in U.S. history, and any attempts to justify his behavior by citing Clinton's "crimes" are simply ridiculous. Clinton did wrong, in many cases, but he has nowhere near the amount of innocent blood on his hands as GWB, for whom a special place in hell is probably reserved, provided there is such a thing as hell.

I knew I should have just skipped reading this thread, but since I've been pulled into it by citing my post from another thread...

I almost started a thread about 1/2 hour before Bush's speach called "Let's Get Ready to Rumble" or "Let the Bush Bash Begin". It doesn't matter what he said or what the plan was, it would be wrong in many people's eyes.

Considering that Pelosi has threatened to take away funding for this military action, what was he supposed to propose? Send in 100,000?

While I agree that sending a mere 20,000 (considering the numbers already there) is a drop in the bucket, if he has made headway in clearing the road to allow the troops to actually DO their jobs there, we will make headway in this action.

BTW, I've never seen someone who is defending Bush be the person who brings up Clinton and his record. Frankly, if I were going to it wouldn't be on the basis of the impeachment, since that was based on extracurricular activities that didn't directly impact the country. No, I think I would compare them based on how Clinton all but neutered the military by cutting it back so much. Anyway, it's always those who hate (yes, hate) Bush who bring up the misinformed notition that Clinton was impeached for his relationship with Monica. You can't rewrite history no matter how many times you tell yourself the same spin that Clinton did. It wasn't about sex, it was about purjory, and very few Democrats seem to remember that.

And Al Gore is a politician. He was Vice-President and ran for President with the same spin that every other politician uses. You really don't think there is any hint of bias with his stance on Global Warming? That's a bit naive, IMO. It would be just as naive to say that GWB wasn't at least trying to finish Daddy's war - at least a little bit. Unfortunately, GWB didn't have Gen. Schwartkopf leading the battle, putting them in the same position to take out Saddam and Baghdad in such a spectacular manner as *could* have been done in 1991.

yes it is sad we have to send more troops over. It is sad that my brother in law has gone to Iraq, lost a good friend and 3/4 his crew in front of his eyes only to return home for a few months and now find he will going back to Iraq shortly. It is all very sad we are losing our sons/daughters, brothers/sisters husbands/wifes friends and co workers. Watching the Democratic followup afterwards, hearing them say 20,000 more should go made me see that people are seeing the total lack of stability this country has when even the war haters think more should go. Do i think men with guns can tame villages of citizens in an up roar who have no idea if they really even want democracy...yes. But how solid is that...whos to say what will happen in the future. To me it seems the new Iraq gonvernment is on pins n needles and were not getting out of this for a long time. I dont blame President Bush, I blame everyone who helped make those decisions and remember those soldiers are soldiers for a reason. this thing called war wasnt invented by President Bush...it was here a long time. The word Military and Soldier hasnt changed. I dunno much about the issue but heck this all is just IMO.

The 9-11 report did not find that pres Bush lied about pre war intelligence. You still dont address my other post in which much of the world believed he had WMD. I give zero credence to anything the UN says; it is a corrupt institution that America should just kick out of this country. It has simply become a soap box for little tyrants seeking to make their reputation by tearing down the US. Remember Hugo Chavez recently? I do not make comparisons to vietnam. There are none. Diffferent time and different war. I do know that when the dems cut off funding of the Vietnam war, and we were thus forced to get out, 3million south vietnamese allies died in a slaughter. I carry no water for any republican when it isnt deserved. As a conservative, I can tell you that millions of conservatives are quite disgusted with GWB for his out of control spending, his refusal to protect our borders, and his allowing our country's manuf. jobs to race out of this country. But I dont call people liars unless I see proof. Clinton was a proven liar. I brought him up in response to someone else's post. He is history to me, I dont care about him. But I am not so partisan to think that every dem is a lying traitor and every repub is god like. As I have said to others, if you have proof that GWB lied, I would be most interested to hear what it is. You would want the same if you were being accused of such a heinous thing. And if you want to look at some recent poor presidents you may want to start with Jimmy Carter who did more to allow the spread of communism in 4 years (1976-1980) than any President ever. Thanks to Jimmy the Ayotallahs took over Iran. But he was just teaching the Shah of Iran a lesson. I think the lesson backfired. Thanks to Jimmy the world saw us as a paper tiger when we allowed hostages to be held for 444 days by student terrorists in Iran. We are still trying to live down that black eye. It was no coincidence that those hostages were released the day Reagan was sworn into office. Bush may have his faults, but we have not been attacked since 9-11. If you are going to blame Bush for all of America's troubles, then you should be ready to credit him for that important fact.

Lastly you may want to consider that al queda became quite emboldened when Clinton refused to do anything about attacks on US targets the entire time he was pres; Tanzania, USS Cole, 1993 WTC bombing and several more. So who has blood on their hands now? Fact is I dont blame Clinton for that, but if we want to level baseless accusations at our Presidents, there are plenty of arguments to be made on both sides of thre aisle.

The whole WMD thing is getting so tired. Yes, there was a belief that Saddam had WMDs, but when they couldn't find any no matter how hard they looked, they invaded anyway! Against the explicit direction of the UN and for no good reason at all. So the fact that it was thought that there were WMDs in Iraq, and there were NONE found, and no evidence of any found, negates the entire premise for the war (well, the entire public one anyway). So it's a fruitless argument.

The criticism of the UN in this case is unjustified. That organisation has a lot more issues to deal with than bringing down America - unfortunately there can be a somewhat overinflated opinion that the USA is the centre of the universe, and that the agenda of every other nation in the world circles around you. The UN has a mission to examine the actions and policies of many, many nations. The USA is subject that scrutiny as much as anyone else. You cannot stand above or outside international law. If you want to, you have no business invading other countries whom you claim do the same.

Heidi - not everyone who criticises Bush is a Bush-hater. I think you have fallen into the other extreme category that he can never be criticised, ever, without you discounting it completely as Bush-bashing. You expect it before it even happens - i.e. "I almost started a thread about 1/2 hour before Bush's speach called "Let's Get Ready to Rumble" or "Let the Bush Bash Begin". It doesn't matter what he said or what the plan was, it would be wrong in many people's eyes." You are guilty of the same thing you criticise - it doesn't matter what is said about him - valid or not - you think it's just blind hate and has no credibility.

Nobody has really bashed Bush at all in this thread - there has been debate and discussion about his decisions and policies, but no actual bashing of him personally. So the whole Bush-bashing argument is not relevant to this thread. But you're right about Clinton - it was a perjury issue, something he SHOULD have been impeached for, and it's a shame people think it was about some extra-marital dalliance. If you could get impeached for that I'm pretty sure Kennedy wouldn't have been President for as long as he was (although he might have ended up being alive longer).

I don't know what the answer is in Iraq. But the fact remains that so many troops (from around the world) are being killed there in a war they should not be fighting, that something needs to be done. And it's not just about the troops - 3,000 American troops have died, but over 70,000 Iraqis have died since the start of this war - 58,000 of them civilians, and it has cost the Bush administration in the vicinity of $400 billion dollars.

You cannot plunge a country into chaos and then withdraw once you realise what a mistake it was, leaving them to pick up the pieces. I don't know if more troops is the answer, but like others have said, I don't know if anyone knows the answer. The only thing likely to be true in this whole sorry mess is that it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

No, I'm certainly not saying he shouldn't be criticized. And no bashing? "A special place in hell" being reserved for Bush is not bashing? "I wouldn't trust him if he said the sky is blue" isn't bashing? I didn't say that unfounded. It's been proven time and time and time again. Since he was elected the first time (and oh puh-leaze don't go into the "he bought/stole the election" again) there have been those who villify every thing he utters. He could cure cancer and it still would be tainted in *some* people's eyes. The point was that no matter what the plan, it would be too little too late for some people. For many people. It absolutely doesn't matter what he said.

Oh yes, and they couldn't find WMD or prove that Saddam didn't have any because he snubbed the UN and IAEA inspectors and wouldn't let them inspect much of anything. Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time (which is the only time that the decision could have been made with the same basis of knowledge) most of the world did believe the WMDs did exist, and thus Iraq could have been a threat. Saddam did 11 years of snubbing the UN with absolutely no consequences (as we learned in the Oil for Food Scandal, since sanctions were supposed to be the consequences). But we were supposed to trust the UN to actually do anything about him and that potential threat? They had proven ineffectual for 11 years when it came to Saddam and Iraq. Just like they are proving ineffectual when it comes to the tragedy in Darfur now.

I'm not 100% supporting Bush in how he went about invading Iraq and how the action has been handled since then. There were definitely mistakes made, not the least of which was the lack of anticipation of the reaction by the insurgents and the various factions in Iraq. Rummy was not the man for the job to run this war. But I can understand why the decision was made at the time.

That's fair, and I do agree - though unfortunately he's not the only one it happens to. If you make enough serious mistakes unfortunately that's pretty much all that people can see. But I remember a few weeks back I saw him on the news talking about his Northwestern Hawaiian Islands plan, now the world's largest marine protected area. He said something like, `We're not going to use it just a little bit, we're going to stay out of there for good'. I was SO impressed, and thought to myself - he doesn't do EVERYTHING wrong. So whilst I still hold to my regular everyday views of him, I am perfectly willing to concede that he has done some good work...but not much...lol couldn't resist

Unfortunately it is always the leader who becomes the scapegoat for the failures of many - and yet that is part of being a leader, and a responsibility you take on when taking a position of leadership. This war was the results of the misjudgement and mistakes of MANY people, not just George W Bush. But unfortunately, ultimately, the blame will lie with him, and it's up to him to fix it.