How will the Iraq war end? »
Posted By STONERS 1 year, 3 months ago in NewsOn the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, progress is slow but violence is down. A three-part series on the war's effects starts today with a look at what the endgame might look like.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
169 Views Share Story 36 Comments Report
Submitted By:
STONERS
Welcome to my profile...I've started a ""STONERS Daily News Group"" Please stop by and have a look and join if you like it ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 128 of 146 Comments (view all)
-
0%
STONERS1 year, 3 months ago
"From the point of view of the US, the Iraq war might be over when a president simply declares an endpoint. To an Iraqi, it might take much longer than that. Iraq today might be only at the midpoint, even the beginning, of a cycle of epic geopolitical change, say some analysts in a Monitor survey of experts in the region as well as in the US. For evidence, look at the Balkans, they say, which is still experiencing the geopolitical aftershocks of its mid-1990s wars."
"It will take the whole term of the next president to get this right."
Reply -
0%
bubba21 year, 3 months ago
The biggest problem here is calling 'it' a "war".
What is going on in Iraq is a CIVIL WAR. The US military is getting hammered because we are there as OCCUPIERS - we won't leave so they are trying to push us out.
The REAL war is between the Sunni and the Shia. When Saddam's regime was toppled, the control over the sectarian factions was destroyed. They have been fighting each other ever since.
The Bush administration, via their unjustified invasion, has DESTROYED Iraq. Their infrastructure is shattered.
There is very little clean water, sanitation, food, medical supplies, medical care, or education opportunities.
The mortality rate for children under 5 is the highest ever in the modern history of Iraq.
Women's rights are down the toilet - women live in fear, can't work, and many have been kidnapped and tortured and murdered for not following 'strict' Islam 'rules'.
Reply -
-
0%
bubba21 year, 3 months ago
Unemployment is 50% or more. Children are working instead of going to school because their parents (if still alive) have no jobs and their families are living in POVERTY.
Most of the internal and external refugees have NOT returned home unless they are forced out (from the current country they are in) or are broke and can't live where they have been any more.
America needs to GET OUT of Iraq. The Iraqis WANT us out, because we have screwed up their country.
Whatever they do after we leave is their business and their problem. We should never have invaded in the first place.
The next President should be "saddled" with NOTHING regarding Iraq, because the next President should get all of our troops OUT of there as soon as possible.
Reply-
0%
djrevelky1 year, 3 months ago
Bubba2,
Everything you say is correct. The situation in Iraq is worse than it was under Saddam.
However, your lack of reasoning...for such a thought out response is troubling. If all of these problems are happening with the US military THERE then what will happen to the people of Iraq when we leave?
The anti-crowd constantly talks about the plight of the Iraqi people; they say that the US military invasion had no foresight or regard for the wellfare of the Iraqi people. That might be true. But those who argue for a withdrawal are doing the exact same thing they accuse Bush of doing. Bush started a hasty invasion without regard for the consequences and the anti-war group wants to make a hasty withdrawal without regard for the consequences.
Reply
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
0%
nikkibabe1 year, 3 months ago
It is very simple.
Bush: It was worth to invade and occupy Iraq in spite of almost 4000 US servicemen death, thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women & children dead, millions displaced or made refugees, unimaginable humanitarian crisis & $half trillion in cost and rising.
McCain: I agree with you boss and I will continue it, if elected.
Obama: I will end it, bring our troops home and use the money saved to fix the country's crumbling infrastructure, if elected. Will negotiate with Iran, Syria, Jordan & Saudi Arabia to help Iraq after we leave.
Clinton: I regret voting for this invasion but now I realize it was a mistake. I will bring troops home and end the war, if elected.
What will happen to Iraq after we leave? There was nothing happening before we invaded & occupied. Iraqis will take care of their country. After all, it is a sovereign country with an elected government and constitution.
Clearly, Americans have a choice in Nov. 2008.
Reply -
0%
houd1 year, 3 months ago
the war will end only when Mr. Bush & Ms. Rice leave the White House, and only if America elected NON-fuel dealer.
But even when US army leave Iraq, the country is already 100 years behind the rest of the world. What America can do for Iraqis after leaving 5,000,000 orphans?!?! this is the question!!
Reply -
0%
Charlson1 year, 3 months ago
"The Bush administration's vision of 2003 -- that an Iraq freed of Saddam Hussein would be a peaceful hive of democracy, the Germany of the Middle East, and a source of strategic strength for the US -- long ago proved wildly optimistic. It's been replaced by the knowledge that Iraq is a frail state, a source of strategic weakness, and a likely drain on US resources for some time to come."
"Of the misjudgments made by the US prior to its initiation of hostilities, however, one of the most profound was its error in predicting how Iraqi society would react once freed of Hussein's grip. Pushed by extremists, it split into ethnic and sectarian groupings. It turned out that few Iraqis -- or, at least, not enough of them -- had been waiting for the day they could found a Jeffersonian democracy."
Reply -
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
-
rdy2rckComment removed: User banned.18 Replies
-
0%
nikkibabe1 year, 3 months ago
Quote:
""Taking all these factors into account, success in Iraq at this point might be defined as a unified country that does not offer sanctuary to Islamic militants and is governed by a stable regime that is not under the influence of a hostile foreign power, such as Iran."
If you call Iran a "hostile foreign power" what do you call your own country which invaded and occupied a muslim country that has border with Iran?
This is what Hitler did in 1940's by invading and occupying France, and started the WWII.
Do you see any difference. I guess not if the writer is a neo conservative Republican war monger.
Reply -
0%
simonsez1 year, 3 months ago
Maybe we should have left Iraq under the dictator and his idiot, sadistic sons. He knew how to control the people with extreme force and fear.
They would either be better off or dead by now.
Reply-
0%
djrevelky1 year, 3 months ago
Maybe Saddam and his rapist sons weren't so bad. Maybe they knew that every now and then you have to commit genocide against a random village in order to keep people in line.
Reply -
0%
wtagg1 year, 3 months ago
Are you not pointing out another of our diplomatic mistakes? Saddam was the dictator of Iraq with our blessing. Are there instances where we have stuck our nose in where it really doesn't belong and it worked out for us?
Why do we continue to not learn from the past?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
buckheadd1 year, 3 months ago
Yes so very true! It'll be another 100 years!
And Mcain is also looking at Iran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I&feat...
Reply
-
-
0%
suznmy1 year, 3 months ago
I'll bet that when Saddam was installed by the then sitting US president he had no idea that he'd end up as collateral damage in the war on terror.
Reply -
-
0%
djrevelky1 year, 3 months ago
I think that is one thing we can all agree on.
It seems like he can't keep his mind on 2 seperate things at once.
The economy was improving after 9/11 and then the Iraq war goes haywire. As Iraq has slowly improved the economy has slowly fallen apart.
Reply
-
-
0%
ETproductions1 year, 3 months ago
If you go back to 1998 and read through the Program for the New American Century's letter to Clinton that called for an invasion of Iraq, it is clear that the Bush/Cheney Administration NEVER had any intention of leaving Iraq. All the justifications about disarming a dangerous dictator, avenging 911 and stopping terrorism were lies. The Iraq invasion was a straight-out takeover of a foreign land in order to gain a permanent base where we could control the Persian Gulf and keep cheap oil flowing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_Ne...
Oil was trading at $23 a barrel before we invaded Iraq and it's now around $110, so the strategy was not only morally repugnant, it was a monumental failure. A failure that McCain plans to continue and accelerate if he wins in November.
Reply-
-
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 3 months ago
Actually i dont think the strategy failed, just that the strategy was another one. It was to rally oil prices where they are now for a decade and secure $50 bil per year for big oil companies and bankrupt the US economy while they made money like there was no tomorrow. Simplistic as this sounds ,it fits perfectly. Look who gained the most from all this. It is not the US military, or the US citizens, or the Iraqi people (yet) . It is the terrorists (they got a phd and post doc program in Iraq free of charge)the big corporations that secured a trillion of accumulated after a couple decades profits and the opportunity they now have to invest and buy out over time the entire high tech sector and future energy production that was placed at secondary role this decade. They now stand to invest in whatever will prove the next move. I mean think about what you can do with hundreds of billions in cash that the war awarded to them worldwide. Indeed new world order from countries to companies.
Reply
-
-
0%
smartsweetheart1 year, 3 months ago
The Iraq war was not over, when President Bush declared America´s victory. We all know that now. I am not sure, if the comparison with the situation in Germany after World War II is really fitting, but I am sure, that enlarging the number of soldiers cannot (and will not!) solve the many problems of the Iraqi people. My wish for this country is a rapid rebuilding of infrastructure, education and health-care and the formation of an indigene and autarc government. In this point, the American after-Iraq-war-strategy could learn from history:
Only who is able to stand on his own feet can get a strong partner afterwards!
Reply -
0%
joeblowe1 year, 3 months ago
This article seems to contain a lot of opinions about what might happen if we DO - or FAIL to do - this or that, but the thing it does NOT have is any explanation of exactly WHY any of it is any of our damned business! Iraq is NOT a part of the U.S. It is NOT our territory. It is NOT our toy. Neither are Israel, Turkey, Korea, Germany, etc., etc. The question very few people are willing to ask is: WHY are our troops in ANY of these places. Of course, Ron Paul has asked that question -- but he has been labeled a "kook" for doing it. The as*wipes that we somehow have put in charge of running this country are running our reputation, our economy, and our military forces right straight into ruin. And the idiot population wants desperately to elect another same ol' same ol' - but with a different slogan. It's VERY disheartening.
Reply -
0%
vor1 year, 3 months ago
A new strongman will eventually emerge and consolidate power. Then we will have real problems if we continue to elect neocons. We claim to have all of these noble ideas for the future of Iraq but we don't understand the culture of these people any better than we did at the start. It is their country, not ours. And as George Will so accurately noted, "there are no Thomas Jefferson's left, Saddam killed them all". Not to mention that many of the wealthy, professional Iraqi's fled the country after the invasion.
A mess. A mess caused by neocon intervention that was poorly planned and poorly executed. The military part was easy, it was when real thought was required that we failed miserably, and continue to fail. We approach a religious division as if it is political in nature and resolvable. Again because we do not understand their society and never truly will.
Reply -
0%
saintetienne1 year, 3 months ago
"we do not understand their society and never truly will."
So we're supposed to just ignore an entire people? Pull out, look away and pretend they don't exist? Shut down all of our business, strategic and humanitarian interests and let them descend into chaos? Great solutions.... Typical of the Retreat and Surrender Caucus. Did Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid scare you into thinking the big, bad ol' Middle East is too much for the U.S. to handle?
Yes, the Middle East is a mess, some of it caused by the U.S., but most of it caused by its own internal problems. The U.S. has largely ignored it for decades, but it's come knocking on our door, and Bush has been the first to take a risk and actually try to do something about it. You may say it's none of our business, but safety, human rights and economic opportunities are EVERYBODY'S business, unless you live in a cave, which I believe bin Laden does.
Reply-
0%
joeblowe1 year, 3 months ago
You seem to be taking the position that everyone in the middle east is an idiot and they can't POSSIBLY manage their own affairs without our help. You overlook the fact that the U.S. has only been around a couple hundred years, but they have been managing -- somehow -- without us for many centuries. It is NOT up to us to "take care of" the middle east - ANY of it. What business we do have there is just that: BUSINESS. We should be TRADING with them, not trying to run the region as though it were our toy. All those Muslims might be insane, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid or incompetent to manage their own affairs.
Reply -
-
0%
vor1 year, 3 months ago
Where in the h-ll do you come up with the premise for your attack? Where do you get all of this reasoning which I do not hold. Do you really believe this administration or any of its lackeys are capable of resolving an ancient religious issue? We removed Saddam, that was our objective. We hoped to leave a stable Iraq behind. That was foolish because Iraq is a British creation and by its very three-sided nature is doomed to instability. It's like a triangular wheel. We aren't looking at real solutions. Al-Maliki certainly isn't. You did nothing but bitch in your post. Offered absolutely nothing of wisdom.
We borrow the dollars to pay for this war from Beijing and you cite human rights as an important American value? We also still deal with Putin as a basic ally. There are no set rules. That is the fallacy of neocon idealogy. The world isn't just black and white, there are alot of grey areas. That's why simplistic thinking does not work.
Reply -
0%
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
"So we're supposed to just ignore an entire people?"
--Why are we bringing in such a paltry number of Iraqi refugees (relative to the number other countries are welcoming) if we care so much about them, sainte? Let me count the ways that our behavior is TOTALLY inconsistent with our rhetoric...Do you people EVER stop to consider that you're being duped? Wow...
Reply
-
-
0%
nikkibabe1 year, 3 months ago
Here is the today's headlines from Huffington Post. A crisis few people who support the invasion & occupation do not understand:
"3,990 US Troops Killedâ;¦ 29,395 Woundedâ;¦ 2,100 Have Tried To Commit Suicideâ;¦ 88% Of Military Officers Say War Has Stretched US Thinâ;¦ 82,000-89,000 Iraqi Casualtiesâ;¦ 4,500,000 Iraqi Refugeesâ;¦ Global Terror Incidents From January 2001: 1,188â;¦ Global Terror Incidents From January 2006: 5,188, cost of taxpayer money so far $600 Billion"
Enough said about a man who still says it is worth it and wants his a Republican continue!
What a country!
Reply -
0%
raats66621 year, 3 months ago
FTA-Iraq is partitioned. This isn't really an option. IF there was oil in every part of Iraq there would be a chance since (like the Baltics after the fall of the USSR) each 'state' would have income available. Unfortunately, they don't and the fighting that would continue would be devastating.
FTA-"Any Iraq will be better than Iraq under Saddam, because the Iraq of Saddam had the ability to threaten Israel" I'm as big a friend to Israel as the next guy (since I have friends and family who live there) but this is crap. The US (and our allies) would no more have let Saddam threated Israel then we let him threaten Kuwait, or would allow him to threaten Saudi Arabia.
Using that as justification for an attack on a sovereign nation who never attacked the US or it's allies is WRONG. It was wrong 5 years ago and it's wrong today.
Reply -
-
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 3 months ago
In about 5 more years! Could be earlier but likely a stable peaceful society will emerge in that time frame. It is how civil wars, insurgencies etc end anyway. In the end Iraq will be better than it was before Saddam but the country that invaded it will be far worse rendering the war a long term mistake exactly as those that described it before 2003. All who have benefited from this are; short term international terrorism, oil companies (Bush's & Cheney's friends) , Russia (oil exports), middle east countries with oppressive regimes in the golf area, defense industry, China and India having a free run in everything while the US was immersed in bs priorities that destroyed it financially and undermined it technologically .
Reply-
0%
sotiris-k1 year, 3 months ago
Thats what human society does after wars in the areas that the wars were taking place. It improves. Millions die and the rest get better eventually. And all you have to ask yourself is this simple thing; In what way is the US better from it all? In what way is the average kid more educated , protected, prepared for a prosperous career for a better world ? In what way is the planet's environment impacted from all the toxic substances released during a modern long term war with daily explosions and burning and other disasters? In what way is the self esteem or economy of the average american improved? In what way is the image of the US over the planet altered?
Yet the most important of all questions and in the end one that embraces all the above is this;
What else was taking place while we were sleeping that we missed and resulted in us giving up our own future because we were unable to focus on what mattered and chose instead to self destruct? Did we destroy ourselves from within?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
OldHickory1 year, 3 months ago
If the Dumbocrats have their way it will end with the sucking sound caused by the vacuum of the troops leaving and Al Queada and the Taliban moving in to fill the void. It's reassuring to know that these 'patriots' weren't around during WWII and Korea. Unfortunately, if they get their way and they turn out to be wrong, there is no going back. But then, if they're mistaken they can always blame it on someone else.
Semper fi.
Reply-
0%
bubba21 year, 3 months ago
There is VERY LITTLE Al Qaeda or Taliban IN Iraq. Only 5 to 10 percent of the insurgency is Al Qaeda and/or Taliban - the rest are LOCALS!
Comparing WWII and Korea to this "war" is erroneous.
It was pretty obvious who the enemy was during WWII, in spite of the fact that our government 'detain' hundreds of thousands of Japanese in this country, mainly out of FEAR (sound familiar).
There was NO enemy in Iraq! There were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq until AFTER we invaded and started making a bit MESS of that country.
There is NO one else to blame for the administration's screw ups in Iraq. It IS all the fault of the Bush administration for lying us into a totally unjustified "war".
Reply
-
-
0%
simonsez1 year, 3 months ago
It will downsize to the point we have a base or two there to neutralize Iran, but out of the way of the Iraqi Government.
They will find their way to make concessions to each tribe which will allow them to function successfully and re-build their country, perhaps resembling Kuwait or UAE.
Reply-
0%
Jaydee401 year, 3 months ago
So all the money is in the hands of a dictator and their friends and family. As long as they stay friendly and let the oil flow to US companies all is justified? Sounds no better for Iraqi's than the government America killed.
Reply
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.