Your point being?
Posted by Sonoma at March 9, 2006 06:13 PMYour point being?
Sheesh. Reading comprehension problems abound today.
Posted by ann at March 9, 2006 06:26 PMYour point being?
Lack of a plan when this started, lack of a current strategy, and a lack of foresight to come up with a plan we can hope to achieve.
I grew up in Sonoma, have family there, and really hope you change your moniker.
Posted by Dishwashing Engineer at March 9, 2006 06:44 PM"Civil Wars are messy." D. Rimsfuck.
Posted by red_neck_repub at March 9, 2006 06:58 PMSo, if Iraqi forces are the ones to deal with any potential civil war, there's no reason for our troops to stay there, right? The whole "but Iraq will descend into chaos if we leave" line of support for a continued presence doesn't seem very convincing if we're going to keep troops there, but let it descend into chaos anyway.
Posted by dj moonbat at March 9, 2006 07:32 PMThe Iraqi army may never have a division able to stand on its own. They don't think of Iraq as one country when push comes to shove. Not without a dictator holding it together. They're all committed to their factions; national unity is a distant second. FUBAR
Posted by Mr Larry at March 10, 2006 12:32 AMDJ, if you think of it from the standpoint of Rummy actually wanting permanent bases in Iraq - and he may - then it makes more sense. Of course that really makes us the great satan, but what does Rummy care?
Posted by Mr Larry at March 10, 2006 12:34 AMThis is high on the list of Rumsfeld's most ludicrous inanities. He's a crazy among crazies. And, oh, yeah, let's invade Iran and then try to find the resources to fight our third war.
Posted by Sally at March 10, 2006 06:03 AM"The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the — from a security standpoint — have the Iraqi security forces deal with it, to the extent they are able to," -Donald Rumsfeld
Translation; We're hoping there's no civil war because that's the extent of our plan to the extent that there is one.
Posted by snark at March 10, 2006 06:07 AMFar from having an operational division, Iraq doesn't have an operational battalion!
von Rumsfeld: "Democracy is untidy! It can involve civil war! That's a decision for the Iraqi people to make!" Blah, blah, blah....ad infinitum.
Good Christ, what a raving, egomaniacal lunatic! He makes McNamara look like a thoughtful visionary. Whatever does this Prince of Clowns think history will do to him?
The nation's military is being "led" by someone who is certifiably delusional, off in his own little world, where terrified "generals" do not bring him the slightest bit of adverse infomation.
As to the Senate "hearing", does the Republican "leadership" ever hear testimony that disputes the Administration's views? Numerous retired generals and military analysts are declaring that (contra von Rumsfeld) Iraq is already "in" a civil war.
And was our deluded RumHead asked what definition of "civil war" he was using? Might be interesting---but why ask? and why solicit opposing views? It's not like the hearing was to obtain relevant information.
Our government is completely broken.
Posted by euzoius at March 10, 2006 06:55 AMOne could pose rather nasty questions about the Administration's motives behind the Iraq invasion if you simply consider that their attitude seems to be "If they don't do exactly as we say, well f*ck them."
For all the talk of freedom and democracy, the moment the real motive for war rears its ugly head, the Administration bleats "It's their civil war, not ours." Surely, some tin foil hat in the Pentagon knew that this mess was going to occur, and all involved blithely ignored the warning klaxons.
Most wars have at least a modicum of reason behind them, but this one is simply about oil, controlling the oil wealth of the Middle East, and ultimately controlling the Middle East itself. There is very little else to say, except to reveal the truth about Iraq to the US public who still believe this disaster is about bringing "freedom and democracy" to the Middle East.
DJ, if you think of it from the standpoint of Rummy actually wanting permanent bases in Iraq - and he may - then it makes more sense.
Yes, and if "permanent bases" was the public reason that we claim we're sticking around, that would be fine. But it's not.
Posted by dj moonbat at March 10, 2006 08:32 AMsimple point: if Saddam was still in power no one would be talking about civil war in Iraq. The United States and George Bush created a power vacuum in Iraq. Now, centuries old adversaries, plus external forces seeing a great opportunity, are trying to fill the vacuum. Our military is helpess to stop this. We can't even drive to the Baghdad airport without an armored convoy. Did George Bush have a real-world plan to fill the power vacuum? Apparently, he did not. He is to blame.
Posted by T2 at March 10, 2006 08:47 AMWell, if we keep our military forces in iraq it is a hell of alot easier to move them directly to iran than it is to remove them and incure the expense of moving them back to the mideast. so all this talk of repercussions for iran if they follow their nuclear initiatives is only a starting point for the next war we will be involved in.
Posted by lonemess at March 10, 2006 10:48 AMlonemess....our 130,000 Iraq troops would be chewed up in Iran. Iran has a real army and a real big army. We have no more troops to send. Further, in case anyone missed it, despite using almost all the cruise missiles in the US arsenal, plus non-stop bombing, we are, three years later, losing the war in Iraq. No, troops on the ground in Iran is something we won't see. It would take a madman to even try it. humm........now I see what you mean!
Posted by T2 at March 10, 2006 12:28 PM