John McCain: What Went Wrong?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I know several people who have been there for several tours. They all say that morale overall isn't low. In fact it has been strangely positive for the most part. Those with low morale supposedly are the malcontents.

As for the Iraqis I was told that the everyday Iragi folk WANT us there. They love that we have tried to help them. They realize we aren't the one CAUSING the problems we have just done a crappy job of solving the problems.

We have to remember that these people have everything going against them.

-They come from a area with a culture that lends itself to totalitarianism.
-They have been ruled with an iron fist for centuries.
-There are insane idiots trying to maintain this type of environment.
-They have spent their entire lives just trying to stay out of trouble and survive.

No where in there is there even a hint of ability to stand up and defend themselves. We shouldn't have expected that we could go in and simply remove a dictator and they would then firgure out what to do. They have no clue. That's what we screwed up. To intimate that it can't be won is silly though. It will just take a long long long long long time. We almost will have to wait until the next generation of Iraqis are grown and ready to take over. I can quibble with our expectations for the war and how we went about it but at this point leaving is the most coward thing we could do.

Whatever happened to Americans nutting up and getting the job done? Being hard workers who did what it took to finish a job, even if everyone in charge is screwing the pooch. I am not saying the bashing of Bush is unwarranted because it isn't I am saying that we need to decide as a country that we are not going to pussyfoot around this type of stuff. We're in it and we need to finish the job whether it takes 18 months or 18 years or 500 years. We're the f*cking USA and we're acting like a bunch of little scared twerps.

I know it isn't a popular war and many think we shouldn't be there but that is irrelevant because we ARE there. That horse has left the barn. Now we have to figure out what to do about it. We have only two options. Stay and finish the job or leave. To me leaving is just plain wrong. We started this mess and should finish it. Leaving now or any time before Iraq is ready emboldens enemy and leaves Iraqis hung out to dry. To me that is a bigger crime than anything. Leaving them to fend for themselves is tantamount to leaving a 4 year old in the middle of the woods in winter. It's our job now and we should finish it.

But here's where the Dems and Repubs split. In fact, here's where some Repubs and other Repubs disagree. What does finish acutally look like? Is is it a matter of duration? Are we looking for the number of casualties to subside? Are we looking for certain 'heads' to be removed and or captured? What will order look like for Iraq? And the bigger question is how long will it take? If someone said, it may take another 5-7 years to get things on track, do we have the wherewithal to undertake such a task?

Are we actually waiting for a complete and absolute presence of peace and cease fire before we say we've won the war on terror? I don't know the answers to those questions and many of our politicians are grappling with the same thing.

Look, many of the Dems are saying if we 'stay the course', as it were, are we just saying we waited as long as we could to satisfy both sides of the aisle. I think the argument for pulling out is, whether it's now or later, much isn't going to improve. So let's salvage what we have and begin to draw down the troop levels.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

But here's where the Dems and Repubs split. In fact, here's where some Repubs and other Repubs disagree. What does finish acutally look like? Is is it a matter of duration? Are we looking for the number of casualties to subside? Are we looking for certain 'heads' to be removed and or captured? What will order look like for Iraq? And the bigger question is how long will it take? If someone said, it may take another 5-7 years to get things on track, do we have the wherewithal to undertake such a task?

Are we actually waiting for a complete and absolute presence of peace and cease fire before we say we've won the war on terror? I don't know the answers to those questions and many of our politicians are grappling with the same thing.

Look, many of the Dems are saying if we 'stay the course', as it were, are we just saying we waited as long as we could to satisfy both sides of the aisle. I think the argument for pulling out is, whether it's now or later, much isn't going to improve. So let's salvage what we have and begin to draw down the troop levels.

I disagree with a lot that you're saying.

A very good friend of mine recently came home from his year long tour in Iraq and continues to think that there is a lot of promise there. The military objective isn't this abstract concept that your portraying it to be.

We're giving contracts out to the local population to help set up the infrastructure, and providing them security while they attempt to rebuild the country, while teaching the locals how to facilitate growth, and stability.

We're helping speed along the progress of businesses by making sure they have reliable resources (electric, water, gas, etc...). The thinking goes beyond beating down insurgents, beyond taking the "heads" of certain leaders.

The theory behind it is that as the economy grows, the nation will realize who are the good guys. Quite frankly, the country is sick and tired of all the fighting. They're yearning for stability, yearning for consistency. They don't deserve a surge of troops, and then a total bail out... resulting in widespread chaos.

We attacked initially, I didn't support the war in Iraq. That doesn't mean that this is anywhere close to a parallel situation. We can't fix our mistake by bailing out, we can't let these people suffer because we ****ed up. It just isn't fair.

Ultimately, like I said earlier, It's about the economy:

If there are no places to work, no stability, no direction, then the youth will turn to what's in front of them. Instead of getting a job, raising a family, and working towards a better future, there will certainly be youths joining the insurgency. The problem will rise exponentially without economic success.

Conversely, if we do succeed, there is hope for a self sustaining democratic society. This isn't a lost cause. We aren't here dicking around. There is a clear cut plausible objective, and I think most people don't realize that. They watch the news, see the death, and lump it all into one big mess.

The biggest problem my buddy from Iraq had with the media, is that they don't report all the progress that's being made. We don't see the good, and get all fussy when someone suggests that it exists.

I'm not saying that the place isn't a war zone. I'm not saying that there isn't death and killing, because there absolutely is. What I am saying, is that there is a clear cut way to win, which is supporting the economic interests and hence produce stability and a self-sustaining government.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

I dis-agree with a lot that you're saying.

A very good friend of mine recently came home from his year long tour in Iraq and continues to think that there is a lot of promise there. The military objective isn't this abstract concept that your portraying it to be.

We're giving contracts out to the local population to help set up the infrastructure, and providing them security while they attempt to rebuild the country, while teaching the locals how to facilitate growth, and stability.

We're helping speed along the progress of businesses by making sure they have reliable resources (electric, water, gas, etc...). The thinking goes beyond beating down insurgents, beyond taking the "heads" of certain leaders.

The theory behind it is that as the economy grows, the nation will realize who are the good guys. Quite frankly, the country is sick and tired of all the fighting. They're yearning for stability, yearning for consistency. They don't deserve a surge of troops, and then a total bail out... resulting in widespread chaos.

We attacked initially, I didn't support the war in Iraq. That doesn't mean that this is anywhere close to a parallel situation. We can't fix our mistake by bailing out, we can't let these people suffer because we ****ed up. It just isn't fair.

Ultimately, like I said earlier, It's about the economy:

If there are no places to work, no stability, no direction, then the youth will turn to what's in front of them. Instead of getting a job, raising a family, and working towards a better future, there will certainly be youths joining the insurgency. The problem will rise exponentially without economic success.

Conversely, if we do succeed, there is hope for a self sustaining democratic society. This isn't a lost cause. We aren't here dicking around. There is a clear cut plausible objective, and I think most people don't realize that. They watch the news, see the death, and lump it all into one big mess.

The biggest problem my buddy from Iraq had with the media, is that they don't report all the progress that's being made. We don't see the good, and get all fussy when someone suggests that it exists.

I'm not saying that the place isn't a war zone. I'm not saying that there isn't death and killing, because there absolutely is. What I am saying, is that there is a clear cut way to win, which is supporting the economic interests and hence produce stability and a self-sustaining government.

Again, what does success look like and how long will it take? To sustain a government means that both Sunni and Shiitie will have to lay down the sword long enough to accomplish those means.

I have all the belief in the world that many of our soldiers are maintaining a positive outlook and some good things really are getting done over there. But it's not the soldiers I'm talking about it that are disgruntled, per se, it's the lawmakers that sent them there in the first place. They're the ones unhappy with the results and progress being made. They're the ones speaking out against the war and the current direction and this present Administration. Many of them feel they echo the sentiments of our country and the men and women who are standing in battle day in and day out.

Water, electricity, and gas? Didn't they have those things before we came over there to help them?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think the argument for pulling out is, whether it's now or later, much isn't going to improve. So let's salvage what we have and begin to draw down the troop levels.

If it's not going to improve, why don't we just leave?

The Dems know they cannot call for an immediate withdrawal without looking like a Kuccinich-esque wuss. So, out of concern for their own political necks, they let our troops slowly die over time for a cause that they themselves have already abandoned.

I disdain a lot of Bush for being so pig-headed, but I have equal disdain for the Dems who about as principled as crack-head in need of a fix.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

If it's not going to improve, why don't we just leave?

The Dems know they cannot call for an immediate withdrawal without looking like a Kuccinich-esque wuss. So, out of concern for their own political necks, they let our troops slowly die over time for a cause that they themselves have already abandoned.

I disdain a lot of Bush for being so pig-headed, but I have equal disdain for the Dems who about as principled as crack-head in need of a fix.

The said part is that we keep putting them back in office. The American people do not care just go out and ask some people on the street whos, Chenney, Obama, Clintons I think they get more times than not, Newt etc... and you would be very surprised how many people have no clue. Then ask the ones with no clue if they are going to vote and for who?

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The said part is that we keep putting them back in office. The American people do not care just go out and ask some people on the street whos, Chenney, Obama, Clintons I think they get more times than not, Newt etc... and you would be very surprised how many people have no clue. Then ask the ones with no clue if they are going to vote and for who?

Well a lot of that I blame the media for. They have the opportunity to give a more unbiased opinion, and balk every time. Why? Because we don't want it. We want theater, drama, comedy, etc...

We don't really, as a country, want to hear someones policies. We want to know why Edwards is running because his wife has cancer, or why Foley likes little boys, or why Al Gore's house uses tons of energy. So much emphasis is based on slandering one another we all get confused and decide to join a team. We even go as far as waving the flag for our particular party, proud to be a Republican, proud to be a Democrat, put bumper stickers on our cars, whatever. It's ridiculous.

The media has to step up and take charge. Don't report the story that gets you the most viewers. Stop reporting what's sexy, and start reporting what's happening. The media has such a huge responsibility to encourage diligent journalism and instead has pathetically settled for the flashy animations and the aesthetically pleasing graphics and sounds. I can't even watch the news anymore, and forcing myself to read both wash times/post makes the issue so very obvious: It's not about who's right and who's wrong... it's about who spins it the best.

I guess we're all still a big nationwide popularity contest when it boils down to it, and it's disgusting. I really hope we start growing up as a country.