Iraq Vote in the House

[samclem]

I don't label myself a "war supporter," but somebody that believes we should continue to support Iraqis who are trying to build a workable government and country. And you are right, the "surge" isn't a plan--did any body say it was?

On a fundamental level, do you think it makes sense for US and Iraqi government troops to continue to hold/police the areas they have cleared of extremists and militias, or should these neighborhoods/districts be left to fend for themselves and allow the extremists to repopulate them? Do you believe common Iraqis will ever view the government as legitimate and truly important if the militias are allowed to flood back after they've been driven out? Well, providing ongoing security in these neighborhoods while we continue to train the Iraqis takes more trops than we have today in Iraq. That's what the troop increase is about. That's what is being tried now. It might work--or we might find that we need to make further adjustments. War (and politics) are not precise sciences. They involve an adapting opponent trying to counter each move and get an advantage. Sometimes it takes a lot of perseverence.

The troops are only one part of the plan. They facilitate the more fundamental and important steps--building the capabilities and crediblity of the Iraqi government and Iraqi civil society.

Where's the plan for stability in Iraq from those who believe we should quit. That's where the deafening silence is. Here's The Plan from the other side as best as I can tell: "It is impossible!! Nothing has been done right, or can ever be done right. Quagmire! It is all Bush's fault! Let's pull out--we've got an election to win!"

 

[Brat]

We 'won' when we overturned the Sadam regime. Then we helped the country put together a constitution and hold a couple elections. Job finished IMHO. The rest is THEIR problem.

We are not going to be able to solve the problems between the various segments of the population. Our presence serves no purpose. The Kurds may ask us to camp in their yard while the folks down south sort it out, that would be OK for a while.

If 'winning' is getting the Sunni and Shia to make nice before we leave then we will be there until the next ice age. This is a problem only they can solve, only they can tamp down the militias. So long as we are there they will not come to terms and we will be blamed by all sides. It is a no-win situation.

I agree that there will be a lot of refugees flowing to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia during this process. Innocents will die just as they are dieing now. As this becomes a problem these countries have the choice of also joining the fray or bringing the parties to the table.

 

[bosco]

Do folks chirping "partion" know what they are talking about? What they should say is "I support ethnic cleansing." The limited amont of ethnic partitioning/forced displacement/bloodshed going on in Baghdad today among the most tragic aspect of the war--so these people think it should be the official policy? Not just fr Baghdad, but everywhere in the country. And what makes anyone think the violence will stop once the partition takes place--they'll just be pseudo states with designs on the resources of each other and with scores to settle. Creating two new theocracies and a Kurdish state on Turkey's border instead of one (certainly imperfect) representative republic is not an improvement, it is a disaster.

actually, I was chirping "partition" but who's checking....

Let me see....3 partitions....the point of which will be to seperate Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds, will result in "ethnic cleansing"? By separating them, they have more opportunities to kill each other? I'd say they are doing a pretty credible job doing that right now. I'm sure there will still be violence, but how will separating them create more opportunities for violence? There was violence when India and Pakistan were partitioned, true. But eventually it came to an end, or at least to a tolerable level. The way things are now in Iraq, it never will.

Creating 3 states vying for resources will end terrorism in the area. If violence is propogated by a government, then it's not terrorism, it's war. War is ok, apparantly. This is the problem the Palistinians have. Since they have no state, anything they do is terrorism. Anything the Israelis do is anti-terrorist so it's ok. So by creating 3 states, we could end terrorism in the region.

While I am being facetious, this is only partly the case. 3 partitions, with borders. It provides more structure to the fighting. The citizens of each region have an identity, and their governmental agencies are controlled by their own sect. They are more willing to step out and attempt to put a stop to intruders trying to bring on chaos in their region. Yes, then the different regions have to fight over the oil wells. ( What barbarians! Going to war over oil!) But presumably that is worked out in the partitioning agreement, and what remains are skirmishes ala India and Pakistan.

The argument that partition will increase violence is, I think, incorrect. For it to work would require buy-in from the parties, and probably from Iran on at least a tacit level as well. But allowing a full-on civil war to continue, and to keep parking troops in the middle of it seems the worst of all worlds.

I think it's a mess, and I don't think there is a clean solution. I think it's a forseeable mess, and think there is no excuse for the US blundering into it (hey, I didn't vote for the cowboy...). But that's in the past. What needs to happen now is to find the least harmful way. I used to think "we broke it, we bought it." But now I'm not convinced it can be fixed, so let's find the least damaging way out for everyone--US and Iraqis.

What's your plan? Make it the 51st state?

 

[bssc]

I remember the Tet Offensive. We were stationed in the Philippines and a lot of my friends whose fathers were in Vietnam were with us there. Westmoreland said that we had won the war and that it was OK for all the wives to come visit during Tet. I remember several of my friends moms talking about how they were trapped inside their hotel and put their bed matresses up against the window so that people couldn't fire in.

If Saddam was good enough for Reagan, he should be good enough for Bush. See http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ with an overview and original documents.

He could have been another Hirohito but we will never know.

 

[samclem]

actually, I was chirping "partition" but who's checking....

Let me see....3 partitions....the point of which will be to seperate Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds, will result in "ethnic cleansing"?

Well, since we are being picky, you want 2 "partitions", not three (I assume) so that we end up with three (not four) new states, right? The "partition" is the dividing line.

The ethnic cleansing I'm referring to is in Baghdad. Traditionally mixed neighborhoods are being cleansed of the "other" religion (Shia or Sunni) depending on which militia (aka "group of thugs") shows up with guns. These people have lived together in peace for decades, but now are being forced into homogenous enclaves. This is one thing the US troop increase may allow us to stop. Apparently, the advocates of "partitioning" believe this ethnic cleansing is a good thing for Baghdad, and should be the policy natonwide. (The issue is actualy biggest in Baghdad, though, since it is the most ethnically mixed city in the country.)

 

[Gone4Good]

While many have derided this as a meaningless vote, it feels like it means something to me, like this represents a gathering of momentum.

It's not meaningless, but it is cowardly.

Lets take a vote on a non-binding resolution to distance ourselves from a gravely unpopular war (which most voted for when it seemed popular, before they voted against) but take absolutely no responsibility for either winning, or ending, the conflict. Cowardly. And shameful.

 

[Gumby]

..

 

[mickeyd]

I can not really see how we (as a nation) can separate the war from the warrior. If the Washington politicians do not support the war effort, they do not really support the troops that they agreed to send to participate in that same conflict.

 

[bssc]

I can not really see how we (as a nation) can separate the war from the warrior. If the Washington politicians do not support the war effort, they do not really support the troops that they agreed to send to the war.

The war seems to have been fought in a very Dilbertesque manner. The politicians and military staff have given the troops on the ground an objective but have never really supported the military with the troops or equipment necessary to carry out their missing. Look at the inability of the military to provide something as basic as Humvee armor. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021101345.html

 

[Zoocat]

nm

 

[alphabet soup]

Did anybody hear that Iraq prodced more wheat last year than any time in the nation's history?

What is your source for this statement? I find it very hard to swallow. (no pun intended)

 

[samclem]

I heard the snippet on the radio a few weeks ago, but can't find any figures for nationwide 2006 Iraqi wheat production to back it up.

There was this bit concerning one of Iraq's wheat-producing provinces. They set a record last year.

********************************
(Info below comes fromthe MS Word document available at this page: http://agwired.com/?p=2842 )

"(Wassit Province, Iraq) -- The southern Iraqi Province of Wassit shipped more than 110,000 tons of wheat and 90,000 tons of barley to state silos this past harvest.
This is a record yield for the province and four times higher than the 2005-crop season’s 48,000 tons combined. . . . "

" . . . Countrywide, Iraq produced 1.2 million tons of wheat and 144,000 tons of barley. That’s good, but the record harvest still falls far short of domestic consumption demand which is estimated at 4 million tons each year."

*****************************************************
Hopes for next year:
" The Ministry of Agriculture is working to boost the volume of wheat produced to 2.4 million tons in 2007.

The ministry’s undersecretary, Subhi al-Jumaili, said measures were taken to help farmers fertilize, cultivate, harvest and ship the produce to state silos in the summer of 2007.

Officials say the ministry’s forecast is attainable but they fear the upsurge in violence might dampen hopes of a bumper harvest.


. . . In the more than 30 years of former President Saddam Hussein’s rule domestic wheat yields rarely hit two million tons. "
http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/12495

*************************************
For the hard-core agrophile, here's a fact sheet on steps being taken by USAID to help Iraqis improve their agricultural sector.
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/updates/jun06/iraq_fs29_060206.pdf

At any rate, Iraq's agriculture sector does not appear to be in the toilet. That's important, because it is the second biggest sector of their economy and an inportant force for social stability, since it provides a large employent base. BTW--oil production is also not as crappy as many reports would imply--it is now at 80% of pre-war levels (and nobody is siphoning off the proceeds to bribe UN officials or the Russians and French).

 

[Jarhead*]

" . . . Countrywide, Iraq produced 1.2 million tons of wheat and 144,000 tons of barley. That’s good, but the record harvest still falls far short of domestic consumption demand which is estimated at 4 million tons each year."

*************************************************

Damn, somebody over there has been spending time on this board.

(Time to start stock-piling.)

 

[bright eyed]

historic or momentum building or not - i hear the brakes screaching at any meaningful action there is not yet enough votes to do something w/ some teeth in it -

the congressfolk need another butt kicking in the next election...

 

[sgeeeee]

historic or momentum building or not - i hear the brakes screaching at any meaningful action there is not yet enough votes to do something w/ some teeth in it -

the congressfolk need another butt kicking in the next election...

I try not to underestimate the fickleness of the American voter, so I realize that anything is possible in the next Senate/congressional election over one and a half years from now. Still . . . it sure seems like Republicans siding with this administration on this invasion/ocupation are just asking for another butt kicking.

 

[alphabet soup]

:. Still . . . it sure seems like Republicans siding with this administration on this invasion/ocupation are just asking for another butt kicking.

It seems, sometimes, like the Republicans who aren't closet gays are strongly masochistic.

Or both.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[lets-retire]

I like the way my Democratic Congress critter put it. "I do not support the war, but by voting for this bill I am showing a lack of support for the military members who are fighting it (his area has three decent sized military bases). President Bush has come up with an option in response to our complaints and by voting for the bill we are essentially saying to the coach do something then booing when he does." Oh by the way he was one of the two Democrats who voted against the bill.

 

[eridanus]

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, . . . would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. . . . Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome."

George H. W. Bush


But, hey, what did he know?

 

[Buckeye]

Great story tonight on 60 Minutes about the Kurds and what they have accomplished since Sadaam was toppled. Amazing what a little homogeneity will do for peace. Their story is something very positive which has come out of this mess.