Can we finally admit the Iraq war is a complete failure?

Baker's Panel Rules Out Iraq Victory

Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.

Instead, the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, "Stability First," argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.

Now even James Baker is ruling out the possibility of winning this war. This quagmire is never ending. Sorry, I don't know what to say anymore. God what a mess Bush got us into.

[edit on 13-10-2006 by mecheng]

I have 2 brothers that are in the Marines over there, the things they describe are terrible; bodies laying in the streets for days, more bodies than they have coffins for, theres always gunfire in the air, low ammunition supplies, etc. We are making things worse by staying there, I know that people are going to say "we cant pull out things will get worse, the terrorists will win," well it seems to me they are already winning over there.

Another thing a lot of people only harp on the terrorism aspect, but a lot of the problems now are caused between shiites and sunnis killing each other.

The only reason we are there anymore is for Bush to save face. Well George, sometimes it takes a real leader to admit a mistake and fix it... not to keep dragging this out just because you don't want to look bad. Thousands of lives and billions of dollars are at stake. Quit living in your little fantasy world where every thing is hunky-dory, give up the stupid Texas cowboy ego thing already (sorry, no offense meant to any cowboys from Texas), and do your damn job!

You picked a rather biased article to quote.

James Baker, a former U.S. secretary of state and close political associate of the Bush family, said on Sunday there are alternatives in Iraq for the United States other than the "stay-the-course" policy of President George W. Bush's administration.

...[I]n an interview on ABC's "This Week," [Baker] added, "I happen to think, and I think it's fair to say our commission believes, that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives ... of stay-the-course and cut-and-run."

"I think that if we picked up and left right now that you would see the biggest civil war you've ever seen and every neighboring country would be involved in there doing its own thing," Baker said

In response to questions, Baker said the task force was weighing the pros and cons of a number of ideas, including one that would create a new power-sharing arrangement in Iraq that would give more autonomy to regional factions.

news.yahoo.com...

Baker is saying nothing about admitting defeat and neither should anyone else.

I didn't say they admitted defeat. However, if our objective was to bring democracy to Iraq (then again, who the hell knows what the objectives were - they change annually) then I think Baker is saying it won't be possible. I guess I would consider that a failure, no?

Edit - How can it be biased? The recommendations are coming from James Baker himself.

[edit on 13-10-2006 by mecheng]

Originally posted by mecheng
...if our objective was to bring democracy to Iraq (then again, who the hell knows what the objectives were - they change annually) then I think Baker is saying it won't be possible.

Ruling out victory sure sounds like defeat to me.

Baker's Panel Rules Out Iraq Victory

Where did Baker say that democracy was impossible?

[edit on 2006/10/13 by GradyPhilpott]

But the president's strategic goal is at odds with the opinion of Mr. Baker's expert working groups, which dismiss the notion of victory in Iraq. The "Stability First" paper says, "The United States should aim for stability particularly in Baghdad and political accommodation in Iraq rather than victory."

Victory being, I guess, democracy. Like I said though, victory is hard to define when the objectives keep changing.

I thought this was very telling as well...

Because of the politically explosive topic of the Baker commission, the panel has agreed not to release its findings until after the November 7 elections.

Lets say we pulled out, and it turned into a sectarian slaughterhouse.
Should we then go back in?

Pent up anger, that Iraqis are now unleashing on each other, as well as foreign troops, wasn't something we created, it's something that rose to the surface, when Saddam was
taken down.

A middle Esatern Khmer Rouge, sponsored by Iran would probably ensue.

Would you go back in, to stop it?
or just let it happen?

Or do you think all Iraqis (and all those from Syria, and Iran) would kiss, make up, and have a picnic?

The Panel has agreed to keep Americans in the dark until after they've elected their representation for the next two years...

Shameful that people are okay with this state of affairs.

It was a stupid move to invade Iraq, period.

Iraq was held together by sheer brutality, Factions kept from killing each other by saddams military. removing that military released pent up anger between the factions, and also directed towards occupying forces.

Add the terrible manner of managing the war on Terror, and we have the recipe for international disaster we are watching daily.

Iraq presented no regional advantage. No economic advantage. No Military advantage, not political, not social, no advantage of any type. We will be forced out of Iraq soon enough, abandon newly built bases and leave ens of millions in equipment to rot in the desert.

The sad part is so many Americans live with blinders on. The President cannot form two sentences coherently. Defense companies run the white house, with the full blessing of the vice president and close circle of advisors. 400 Billion to iraq...and we have so many problems at home.
If the American public is too lazy...too stupid to realize what is going on, then simply follow the money.

spacedoubt...
I simply don't have the answer. All I know is that I was told by the Bush administration that the reason we were invading Iraq is because they had WMD's with hints that they also were connected to Al Qaeda. Well, I was lied to. And now, after thousands of lives lost, and billions of dollars spent on this, they want to just keep dragging it out.

It is not my job now to determine how to fix Bush's problem. However, I think the first step (like an alcholic) is to admit that you have a problem. I just don't think we should support this administration anymore. How can we after everything that has happened.

What do you suggest? Just stay there for who knows how long, killing more and more people, costing billions of dollars more, building up more and more resentment towards the US?

I don't know the answer... but what about splitting the country up?

I don't see any chance for a real democratic goverment to ever be installed in Iraq, at least while the U.S army is still there. Civil war is rising, insurgency is rising, and this adminstration I believe never wanted to put in the number of troops needed to do any actual change.

Well, maybe I'm missing something, but victory was achieved when Saddam was deposed and captured and "stability particularly in Baghdad and political accommodation in Iraq" is what we are fighting for now.

I would draw an analogy to combat in other wars, for instance, the Pacific Island campaigns. These battles were often announced in the media as being victories because the effectiveness of the enemy to sustain combat operations had been eliminated, but the so-called "clean-up" operations sometimes continued for months and involved heavy casualties on both sides.

In Iraq, the same thing applies in many ways, except that Iraq is not an island and the number of terrorists is not finite and the factional fighting only exacerbates the situation.

I believe that stability can be achieved in Iraq and that democracy is possible. Our own history proves that freedom and democracy do not come easy and can take centuries to come to full fruition.

Why should we expect that Iraq with its history of factional violence and tyranny be any different?

I hate to differ with the esteemed Mr. Baker, but victory is possible no matter how it's defined and by my definition victory has been achieved.

By the standards that are apparent in the article, America's democracy is a miserable failure because certain elements have rioted in Los Angeles, New York, Tulsa, Chicago, Oxford, Mississippi, Atlanta, Toledo, etc., not to mention the War of Northern Aggression.

The forces of good and evil are always at odds and will be until the end of time. It is never acceptable to admit defeat.


[edit on 2006/10/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Grady...
You made some good points. But if victory was only about removing Saddam then a) the Bush administration was very short sighted and b) why didn't we just assassinate him and save the hundreds of thousand other Iraqis?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I believe that stability can be achieved in Iraq and that democracy is possible. Our own history proves that freedom and democracy do not come easy and can take centuries to come to full fruition.

Difference is that, unlike the American revolution, in Iraq the war wasn't started by its own people. There's a big difference there. We invaded and are now occupying that country.

It's illegal to assassinate heads of state.

It's irresponsible and short-sighted to pull the plug on Iraq the way we did in Vietnam. You'll never here Hanoi John and Jane bemoaning the massive death and misery that followed the communist takeover of Vietnam and you won't here Kerry and Kennedy giving a hoot about what happens to Iraq if we leave.

The last two people I would ever want to throw my hat into the ring with is John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and their ilk.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
It's illegal to assassinate heads of state.

But its ok to kill hundreds of thousands of their citizens... and for what?

It's irresponsible and short-sighted to pull the plug on Iraq the way we did in Vietnam.

I would argue that it was irresponsible and short-sighted to have gone in there in the first place.

The last two people I would ever want to throw my hat into the ring with is John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and their ilk

I'm not crazy about any of them.

Grady, what would you suggest we do? At what point do we say our job here is done... let's go home?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The forces of good and evil are always at odds and will be until the end of time. It is never acceptable to admit defeat.

Has it ever occured to you that maybe our forces are not on the side of that argument which you think they are? Our leadership may not be on the side of "good" like you suggest. Motivations would indicate what side of the moral chasm we fall. I think motivations may not provide the evidence to support the rightousness required to be the "good" in this battle.

Also, I would like to know who got to decide who was "good" and who was "evil"? I think that changes depending on the cultural filter you apply to the situation, no? I would think that if we took a poll around the world, we would be disappointed to find out which side of we find ourselves blindly supporting.

[edit on 13-10-2006 by The Iconoclast]

When the job is done. I can't say when that will be, but it clearly is not yet.

When do you stop mowing the lawn?

Invading Iraq probably was unnecessary, but most everyone in positions of power agreed at the time that it was.

The same could be said of the island campaigns of WWII. We could have saved a lot of lives and money if people had known in 1941 what they knew in July of 1945.

We have to stay the course because the course is to put an end to the terrorist threat that has engulfed the whole world.

We have no choice, but to fight or to surrender.

Surrender is unacceptable.

IF we decide to pull out, meaning leaving Iraq as it is, it becomes a failed state which I'm certain most people here knows what it means. Which means that this country is a nest for terrorists to plan and attack around the world uninhibited since there is no security or enforcement to prevent terrorists from operating there (something like Afghanistan), and probably try to attack the neighboring countries of Iraq to overthrow U.S. allied countries and establish an anti-American Caliphate which would be bad for us which in turn price of oil goes up, or maybe cutoff since the Islamic terrorists prefer to see America collapse.