This story is archived
How will the Iraq war end? »
Posted by: STONERS 1 year, 9 months agoOn 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 »
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 ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 146
-
STONERS
March 18, 2008, 10:52 a.m."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."
-
bubba2
March 18, 2008, 2:25 p.m.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'.
-
bubba2
March 18, 2008, 2:27 p.m.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.
-
PsychoHosebeastComment has been removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
nikkibabe
March 19, 2008, 8:35 a.m.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.
-
houd
March 19, 2008, 8:56 a.m.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!!
-
Charlson
March 19, 2008, 9:13 a.m."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."
-
AtheismIsRealityComment has been removed: Retracted by user
-
rdy2rckComment has been removed: Hard Banned
-
nikkibabe
March 19, 2008, 9:50 a.m.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.
-
simonsez
March 19, 2008, 10:13 a.m.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.
-
-
suznmy
March 19, 2008, 10:32 a.m.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.
-
walden3
March 19, 2008, 10:35 a.m.One thing is for certain President Bush will forever be known as the president that put the United States on life support.
-
ETproductions
March 19, 2008, 10:47 a.m.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.
-
smartsweetheart
March 19, 2008, 11:27 a.m.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!
-
joeblowe
March 19, 2008, 11:25 a.m.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.
-
vor
March 19, 2008, 12:01 p.m.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.
-
saintetienne
March 19, 2008, 12:22 p.m."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.
-
nikkibabe
March 19, 2008, 12:30 p.m.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!
-
raats6662Comment has been removed: Retracted by user
-
sotiris-k
March 19, 2008, 3:21 p.m.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 .
-
-
OldHickory
March 19, 2008, 4:58 p.m.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.
-
simonsez
March 19, 2008, 6:02 p.m.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.
The first 128 comments are shown. Show all 146 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
