Political surge in Iraq | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Editorial

Political surge in Iraq

Monday, February 25, 2008

Comment

It has taken nine bloody and difficult months, but the deployment of 30,000 additional U.S. troops appears at last to have brought not just a lull in the sectarian fighting in Iraq, but the first tangible steps toward genuine political reconciliation.

Last week, the parliament passed a crucial package of legislation that reflects real compromise among the many factions on three of the thorniest issues that have bedeviled Iraq. First, a law requires that provincial elections be held by Oct. 1, and requires that a law spelling out the details on conducting the election be passed within 90 days.

This is essential because there hasn’t been legitimate, elected local leadership in much of Iraq since Sunnis boycotted the 2005 local elections. Free elections of leaders who would be accountable to their populations would make it possible for the U.S. to hand over power in many Sunni areas and draw down.

Second, an amnesty law will allow the release of thousands of prisoners, most of whom are Sunnis and many of whom have been held for months in hideously overcrowded jails. The amnesty was a key condition for the Iraq Accord Front, a Sunni party, to return to the government of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, which it quit last summer. Maliki reportedly hopes to form a new Cabinet soon.

The package also included a national budget, finally passed on the seventh try. It gives 17 percent of national revenues to Kurdistan — more than the Sunnis wanted, but a first try at the kind of painful compromise that will be essential in keeping Iraq from more violent Balkanization.

Ironically, all this good news might make it harder to get American military personnel out of the country. The better things go in Iraq, the less likely it is that U.S. generals (or politicians) will want to risk jeopardizing their hard-won gains by drawing down. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has agreed to a request by Gen. David H. Petraeus to return to the pre-surge level of about 130,000 troops by August, and then allow a “strategic pause” to evaluate whether more can come home.

Battlefield commanders know best how many troops are needed to keep the country stable, but as a political and economic matter, U.S. forces must leave Iraq eventually — sooner, if voters choose a Democratic president, much later if the president-elect is Republican John McCain. Either way, the United States needs a logical, orderly exit strategy that minimizes the risk that civil war will resume when our troops leave.

If the momentum of Iraq’s political surge is sustained, it’s conceivable that the United States, having torn the country apart in an ill-conceived invasion and a disastrous occupation, could help glue the biggest pieces together on its way out the door. But building a decent government will probably prove even harder than curbing the violence. And even under the rosiest scenario, it will be our moral duty to provide large-scale political, military and humanitarian aid, including support for the refugees who are beginning to trickle back home, for many years to come.

(This editorial originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.)

81 comment(s)

rocketman wrote on Feb 19, 2008 7:29 AM:

" The most important point in this article is, "Battlefield Commanders know best how many troops are needed to keep the country stable...." Politicians need to stay out of these affairs and quit second guessing war strategies that they have absolutely no knowledge of. "

kevin wrote on Feb 19, 2008 8:19 AM:

" How did the NVR editors let this get through? GOOD news out of Iraq? The Liberal media establishment is not going to like this... "

Sandra wrote on Feb 19, 2008 9:31 AM:

" Rocketman, absolutely. If we want the job done, in the safest and most expediant manner politicians need to but out. Our military is very well trained, let them do their jobs. The politicians can step in at the end by, as the article states, "And even under the rosiest scenario, it will be our moral duty to provide large-scale political, military and humanitarian aid, including support for the refugees who are beginning to trickle back home, for many years to come." Of course this is usually where the politicians let the ball drop. This is how Al Qaeda gained power in Afghanistan. Hopefully those in Washington learned something....maybe they should all read or watch Charlie Wilson's war?
"

common sense wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:13 AM:

" All the good news in the world won't stop the lefties from trying pull defeat from the jaws of victory. "

glenroy wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:46 AM:

" Hey Rock..man...if they did stop second guessing our military leadership they’d likely have to account for their own misguided statements...a year ago every Democrat of national prominence, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Boxer, Thompson, Barack Hussein Obama and even Joe Biden couldn’t resist... ‘the war was already lost,’ the ‘Surge’ was clearly Bush desperation... history has taught those willing to pay attention these are the same political ideologues using same ploy that turned American public opinion against the Vietnam War.. shouldn’t be too surprising the current DNC leadership is entirely comprised of ideologic anti-war-riors....... "

JimClark wrote on Feb 19, 2008 11:11 AM:

" Under the Constitution, The President administers war. The Congress is responsible to join him/her in declaring the war. War is too important to leave to the politician.

War is a devastating and demoralizing assault on the enemy; PERIOD!! Our politicians, since WWII have not supported these conflicts as a majority. That could be considered aiding the enemy. "

russ wrote on Feb 19, 2008 5:36 PM:

" Democrats have been so determined to lose the war against Islamic jihad that they keep moving the goal posts of success. The military war is unwinnable...this is another Vietnam...free elections cannot work...the political situation hasn't improved...the world hates us. Where does the Democrat Party, which is not proud to be American, go from here? russ "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Feb 19, 2008 8:27 PM:

" So what do we 'win' by spending more billions per week in Iraq, exactly? The warloving Bush-enablers talk about Dems moving the goalposts of success out of one side of their mouth, while out of the other side they can't tell us when our victorious soldiers can come home. And... war-loving Bush-enablers... George W. Bush is a politician who fires generals that don't tell him what he wants to hear. Ever since Gen. Shinseki told Bush and Rumsfailed that they were not sending enough troops in the first place. Thousands have died for an invasion that should have never happened in the first place. But we are supposed to chumps enough to believe Bushite revisionist history instead of the squandered lives and billions. ~Ruff "

Sandra wrote on Feb 20, 2008 8:43 AM:

" "Thousands have died for an invasion that should have never happened in the first place." This is certainly an opinion. And I will even grant that the writer has some basis for making this statement. But, it is a premise that is open to debate. Personally, I was against going into Iraq like we did. But, it happened. Now we are working with a different reality than we had pre Iraq. We have done similar things in the past,all debatable whether they were for good intentions and reasons, greed, power, etc. But almost everytime we got something started and then let the ball drop, as Ruff seems to be advocating we continue to do, disaster has followed for the poeples whose lives we attempted to change. A recent example is Al Qaeda, and Afghanistan. We finally seem to be making some headway in Iraq. I think we should be smart enough to learn from the past, especially when it comes to terrorism, and terrorists, as mistakes lead to such dire consequences. This mistake of pulling out before we have done the job we started to do would not only be a disaster for the Iraqis, but for the us also. Terroism is a real threat. If we have not registered that in our brains after 9/11, then we obviously live on Denile, not only a river in egypt. "

Common Sense wrote on Feb 20, 2008 9:02 AM:

" Actually, Ruff, the invasion SHOULD have happened. The head Democrats, our own CIA with (Clinton-appointed) Tenet in charge, and all of the major industrial nation intelligence organizations said Iraq had WMDs. Even Russia said so! President Bush would have been stupid to not take action. Besides, Hussein had WMDs when he killed off 3/4 of a million Kurds (even Ted Kennedy admits it). UN Resolution 687 from 1991 said he was supposed to turn over whatever WMDs he had left and tell us what he did with the rest. After 17 spineless UN Resolutions, he didn't. Now, do you really think all countries should have nuclear weapons? No. Do you think you can realistically get every country to give up their nuclear weapons? Nope. That means someone has to decide who gets them and who doesn't. Perhaps, with all of the competence the worthless UN has shown with the Oil-for-Food scandal, Rwanda, and Darfur, we should let them make that determination? "

JimClark wrote on Feb 20, 2008 11:23 AM:

" Well Ruff, get behind it and get your representaves on track. It could have ended had it been declared as opposed to merely being supported. "

BushCheney2008 wrote on Feb 20, 2008 1:46 PM:

" common sense is right! Who should decide who gets nukes? U.S.A., that is who! We told the weapons investigators in Iraq to get out because we needed to take care of WMD right then and there and weren't going to wait for investigation. Investigation would have shown us to be weak! Like common sense said, Bush would have been stupid not to nip Iraq in the bud immediately. "

glenroy wrote on Feb 20, 2008 3:03 PM:

" Great point Common Sense...might comment that had Saddam remained in control of Iraq by now he would have had, and he said that while in confinement obviously before the Neck-tie party, (Saddam) a fully reinstate WMD program....Saddam had already established a documented working relationship with al qaeda through the Sudan passing along WMD manufacturing processes while allowing al qaeda to build a terrorist compound in Kurdish controlled northeast Iraq....it should also be pointed out that throughout American War history this country has fought in many counties that were not then at ‘War’ with us..North Africa was chosen in the 2nd World War as it allowed us to dictate the terms, time and place, of the battle. When this war began we had no means to bring al qaeda to the field of battle, we had no means to fight but with conventional forces thanks to Democrat Policies of gutting our CIA... al qaeda was out of our reach socked away in the NWF of Pakistan, the only other sizeable al qaeda force being the estimated 1,500 terrorists Saddam allowed within Iraq mentioned above which of course was taken out in the earliest day of the liberation of Iraq....sadly, Democrats couldn’t resist the temptations of undermining this portion of the war even though Democrats implemented this policy of unilateral removal in 1998; even as Iraqi forces stand up and become ‘our first viable alley in the Middle East’ taking al qaeda head and while the vast majority of Iraqis now support our efforts the Democrats haven’t the courage to support what needs to be done. This is a war that remains beyond the ability of some to merely comprehend.... and others to take advantage during expected and unexpected difficulties common in all wars....

"

Ruff Limblog wrote on Feb 20, 2008 4:25 PM:

" Yes, I am getting behind the candidates who will extract the USA from Bush's Oil War (as Alan Greenspan called it). And it seems that Hillary Clinton, so demonized by the rightwingnutz, who just lost Wisconsin by 17 points to winner Barrack (Did somebody say his middle name is Hussein and he won anyway?) Obama, still gets more votes than all the Republican war-enablers combined! FINALLY... Bush's Folly is coming to an end... after more time that it took competent Democratic president FDR to win WWII from the bottom of a Republican caused Great Depression, America's kids get to come home to the families who love them. When the losing Dem nominee gets more votes than ALL the Republicans get combined that is a sign that the American people are not falling for the same old KoolAide that worked last time. I smile as take the money I've saved on gas by not listening to the NVR Republican 'perfect reverse weathervanes' about hybrid cars and write a check out to progressive candidates with it! ;o) IT feels REALLY GOOD! ~Ruff "

Joe wrote on Feb 20, 2008 4:43 PM:

" George W. Bush is a great president, bottom line. Now let's hear it one more time for president George W Bush, George W bush, George W Bush. Hurrayyy. "

russ wrote on Feb 20, 2008 7:02 PM:

" I will tell you exactly when our "victorious troops" will come home. It will be when Gen., & future president, Petraeus says they are victorious! Unless some "Surrender First" Democrat president pulls them out first. Those of us who have studied American history remember that president Abraham Lincoln hired and fired Gens. McDowell, McClellan, Burnside, Pope, Meade and Hooker before he found Gen. Grant, a general who would FIGHT AND WIN a war and suffer, and inflict, the casualties which occurred in winning that war. As it turned out, Lincoln was right, despite the virulent hatred of his opponents. There were plenty of naysayers in 1861-1865. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Feb 20, 2008 9:27 PM:

" General Petreaus may or may not be a future US president, but he agrees with the folks like me who say that there is no military victory possible in Iraq. Just like Vietnam the war that should have never been started was a waste of American lives and money. None of the chest-pounding war lovers can tell their fellow Americans what the USA 'wins' if we occupy Iraq until their oil runs out. We can buy oil cheaper than it can be conquered. And oil was cheaper before Bush's Folly began. So America has 'won' the right to drop some $13 billion a month in Iraq while paying three times more for a gallon of gas than it was in the last summer of the Clinton administration. A truly "Great Victory"... for Bush chumps. ~Ruff "

Rocco wrote on Feb 20, 2008 9:37 PM:

" KoolAide drinkers? The only KoolAide drinkers I've met are the silly folks that think it makes a difference who wins the White House. If you think Obama will get our troops home any sooner than any other candidate...well, you've been hitting the punch a bit too often. Last time I checked we're still in Germany and Korea. WUWT? "

JimClark wrote on Feb 21, 2008 3:44 PM:

" Ruff: It is clear from your posts that your are part of the problem. If America is at war, we should have won it had it been declared as such. Conflicts cause all too many deaths.
War ends shortly after it is declared as such. "

russ wrote on Feb 21, 2008 4:32 PM:

" Fact Checker russ on the job. Ruff said, Gen. Petraeus ..."agrees with the folks like me who say that there is no military victory possible in Iraq". I have not been able to confirm that this is true. Please refer me to your sources that prove this "fact". Google Gen. Petraeus quotes from Jan. 8, 2008 and Nov. 26, 2007. Petraeus says, "As the troop surge in Iraq approaches its one-year anniversary, the commander of Multinational Force Iraq said he’s buoyed by successes made and momentum built, but recognizes the job is far from over." Ruff, you flunked the fact check. russ "

kdbk wrote on Feb 21, 2008 7:19 PM:

" Absolutely wonderful to read the comments of so many level-headed, informed people.

Lincoln was hated by millions of his countrymen during his term. He waged a war against rebellious states that cost more than a half-million lives...when the country was a lot smaller than it is today. Not to mention the comparable financial costs. Gee, I wonder what an "opinion poll" circa 1863 would have had to say regarding people's satisfaction of the war. Of course, the "satisfaction" score for the eventual outcome and long-term results from the Civil War today is about 99%.

Washington had to change strategy and endure terrible defeats through the 7 year American Revolution. He was scorned and opposed by more than half of the colonists in his pursuit for FREEDOM and very, very often (and sometimes quite sternly) encouraged to give up. Although he wasn't President during the war, when he finally reached that office, he was offered the job for LIFE.

The efforts of these great leaders were not fully realized for a long time after they were gone. How sad it is that the "ruffs" of the world just don't comprehend this imperfect, dangerous and vast world in which we live. And they think we're the simple-minded ones.

"

russ wrote on Feb 21, 2008 8:58 PM:

" And more Americans died in one day at Manassas, Shiloh, Antietam, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, Atlanta and major battles of the war. The same price in WWI and WWII...daily in the Pacific and Europe, than in all of the years in the Middle East. Speak of reality of the price of freedom and cost of defending of America, yes, each casualty is life changing. That is the price we Americans are willing to pay. "

Joe wrote on Feb 21, 2008 11:25 PM:

" Well said kdbk, there are too many "ruffs" in this world that think that humans can live peacefully amongst each other in this world. The fact is there will always be somebody who wants more power and will forcefully take what they can get. That is how the USA was formed as the way it is today. We need to continue to occupy other countries who are a threat to mankind. While we are there we should take resources from them that will benifit the citizens of the United States. It is the survival of the fittest. We are the fittest for now and must take from other countries to remain the worlds superpower for many years to come. That is why I have great respect for President George W Bush. He has his prioroties strait. "

Todd Adams wrote on Feb 22, 2008 7:22 AM:

" The American Revolution, Civil War, and WWII have little in common with the Iraq war. In the American Revolution we fought for our freedom from the English Empire, in the Civil War we fought to either preserve or divide our Country and in WWII we were defending our country and allies from 3 facist military powers who sought to take over the world. In the current war in Iraq we invded a sovereign nation who posed no threat to us.

It may be that Bush, Clinton, Tenet and Russions believed that Iraq had WMD, but I and most of the world did not and were correct. The yellow cake urarium from Niger claim and the aluminum tubes for processing uranium were both proven false before we invaded. In the case of the yellow cake uranium, Tenet pulled that out of a speech Bush gave in Cincinati because the claim was based on a forgery, but somehow the yellow cake story made it back into the State of the Union speech 3 months later. Oops? It was clear to me that we were being misled about why we needed to invade Iraq.

Furthermore, the idea that Saddam would give WMD to a bunch of terrorists is naive. Osama bin Laden called Husain an infindel and bin Laden was exiled from Suadi Arabia when he started to build a muhajadeen army to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait before we did the job for him.

Even though I was opposed to going into Iraq in the first place, I am glad to see that there is some political progress in Iraq. I've been hoping for the best all along, but I think we are going to be stuck in this pickle for alongtimetocome. "

JimClark wrote on Feb 22, 2008 10:35 AM:

" I am on the record many times in the past. America has not been at war since World War Two. We submit our soldiers to “conflicts” that seem to last forever and at the cost of too many American lives.

War is a violent and demoralizing assault on the enemy.
The Nazi removed the removable antiquities from Dresden after being warned that city would be decimated. The population was warned by leaflets and rumors. Little if any attempt was made to evacuated that city.
The bombing and destruction of Dresden demoralized the entire German population and left the message that Germany itself could be reduced to ashes. That is war. Hiroshima and Nagaski suffered the same destruction. Bottom line? Unconditional surrender. War is better left to the Generals under the auspices of the President with the absolute support of Congress. "

JimClark wrote on Feb 22, 2008 12:59 PM:

" Here’s something else to consider. Our so-called legislators spend our taxes. Where does their money come from? "

Common Sense wrote on Feb 22, 2008 4:50 PM:

" Here's another one to consider...the more horrible the war, the quicker it is over. "

misfit wrote on Feb 22, 2008 5:04 PM:

" Of course, the cease fire that has been underway in Iraq, called for by Al-Sadr had nothing to do with the relative calm in recent months. Thank goodness he has called to renew it for another 6 months. At least look at the whole picture. "

russ wrote on Feb 22, 2008 5:24 PM:

" Yes, Todd, but in WWII we had a choice and elected to stay out of the war for years, until we were attacked, in a territory 2,400 miles away. We could have ignored it and pulled back but Roosevelt eventually made the right decision...to FIGHT. Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo were not close to attacking our homeland at the time we entered the war. "

Bill wrote on Feb 23, 2008 10:31 AM:

" I guess Pearl Harbour was not an attack on "the Home Land" as it was not yet a state. "

russ wrote on Feb 23, 2008 4:58 PM:

" I often think about what the Commander-in-Chief should do in the first few months after an attack on our Homeland, such as we had 9/11/2001. Knowing what our elected leaders, intelligence agencies and military experts knew at the time, how could we afford to do anything less than use overwhelming power against any reasonable threat? Using 20/20 hindsight from 3-4 years ahead, the Democrats would have studied the situation, negotiated with our enemies, gone to the UN and protected the privacy of terrorist phone calls. The Democrat House has stalled our intelligence gathering. George Bush did otherwise and we have not had an attack on "the Homeland". I'm with Bush. "

Sandra wrote on Feb 23, 2008 5:00 PM:

" Bill, I am not sure what you mean by your post. Is it that you did not understand that we went to war with Japan first, and then with Germany, when at a later date they declared war on us for us declaring war on Japan, which was their ally? Germany did not attack our country, Japan did. "

Joe wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:34 PM:

" I'll just quote Gov. Schwartzennager again by saying " I support President George W Bush, George W Bush, George W Bush!" "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Feb 24, 2008 9:26 AM:

" The so-called "surge" has been a complete failure. (How many more days will this editorial---clipped from the Los Angeles Times---appear on this web site?) "

common sense wrote on Feb 24, 2008 9:43 AM:

" Germany never attacked us in WWII, yet we went to war with them. Aghanistan and Sudan didn't attack us prior to Clinton bombing them with Tomahawk missiles in 1998 (without UN permission). Both were the right decision, however. "

Bill wrote on Feb 24, 2008 11:05 AM:

" Sandra, read the prior post by Russ. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the Aleutian Islands without warning. Neither Hawaii nor Alaska were states at the time so it is my observation that he does not consider them part of “the Homeland” for the purposes of his argument. Merely observing the posts I happen to have a personal aversion to the term “Homeland” it smells like “Fatherland and Motherland” I prefer to call my land America and not to wrap my arguments in the flag and the call to patria overall. Nor do I prefer to misrepresent one political party to the exclusion of the other. Notice if it is clever enough I would stoop to do so. So far the posts on this subject are far afield, misleading and frankly not witty enough to engage much serious thought. It’s a nasty day outside so lets not provoke each other if you don’t like or don’t understand just let it go. Add something non accusatorial of the commentator to the posts and counter the argument soundly and I will attempt the same. Russ has touched me up before and will no doubt do so again he does not need you to defend him if that is your intention. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Feb 24, 2008 11:29 AM:

" The Old Lie: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori! "

russ wrote on Feb 24, 2008 6:17 PM:

" MJH, "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori!" If it is good enough to grace the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery, it is good enough for me. What man has the right to call it a lie? russ "

russ wrote on Feb 24, 2008 6:19 PM:

" Bill, does the Department of Homeland Security remind you of the SS or the Gestapo? "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Feb 24, 2008 10:43 PM:

" In December of 1941, the U.S. declared war on Germany AFTER Germany declared war on the U.S. "

Sandra wrote on Feb 25, 2008 7:57 AM:

" Bill, my earlier answer to you did not post, not sure why. I said in it that my "Feb 23, 2008 5:00 PM" post was made due to confusion on my part as to what you meant, not to provoke you....that motivation is not worth my effort, but it does seem to be something you enjoy based on your mistaken reaction to my post. I also wish to observe that I found no post where Russ used the term "Homeland", and in the previous post by him, he called Hawaii a teritory, which was completely accurate. So again, I am at a loss. You are the one reading into other's posts and introducing concepts not brought forth by the posters, and then arguing against said concepts. Again, it was not my intention to provoke you, but to clarify something that seemed from out in left field. LOL, and my goodness, it still hasn't clarified. And Madisons's post of "Feb 24, 2008 10:43 PM", yes, and your point is? "

Common Sense wrote on Feb 25, 2008 10:14 AM:

" Mad Jay, nevertheless, Germany did not attack us before our declaration of war on them. And Clinton still sent Tomahawks in to Afghanistan and Sudan without them attacking us and without UN approval...one of the things he did right. "

russ wrote on Feb 25, 2008 11:37 AM:

" How does Kosovo play into this back and forth. I am still not sure why Clinton took us there in the first place. Why are we still there? What is our national interest in Kosovo? Why is our military there 10 years later? Kosovo makes Iraq look like a slam dunk necessity. Now we have half of Europe mad at us for recognizing the national status of Kosovo. Why? Who cares? What do Hillary and Barack say? "

russ wrote on Feb 25, 2008 11:43 AM:

" Mad Jay, Wikipedia offers the following "On December 11, Hitler and Mussolini declared war on America and the U.S. Congress responded in kind.[2][3" This contradicts your statement. Fact checker russ "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Feb 25, 2008 10:30 PM:

" The Congress responded? Responded to Germany's declaration of war against the U.S.? So Germany declared war on the U.S., and the U.S. responded by declaring war on Germany. The U.S. declared war on Germany AFTER Germany declared war on the U.S. Therefore, I stand by the wording of my previous post. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Feb 25, 2008 10:31 PM:

" Wilfred Owen had the right to label the phrase, "Dulce et decorum est" a lie. In my post, I simply repeated his words. "

russ wrote on Feb 26, 2008 5:35 PM:

" MJH, You are correct, I mis-read your post regarding the war declaration with Germany. "

russ wrote on Feb 26, 2008 5:50 PM:

" MJH, re: "Dulce et decorum est
pro patria mori" was relevant during WWI when it was written, not today. Give credit to the young men and women of our volunteer armed forces for knowing what awaits them, as they serve their country during a war. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Feb 28, 2008 5:43 PM:

" The "war" in Iraq ended years ago. Unfortunately, the illegal, immoral "occupation" of Iraq continues. "

Sandra wrote on Feb 28, 2008 7:35 PM:

" Madison, have to wonder....How do you feel about Al Qaeda legally and morally occupying Iraq if we leave as you advocate? Do you thnk they will treat the Iraqis in a humane and loving way? Do you think they will use the money from Iraqi oil to fund humanitarian acts? Maybe they can send it to Darfur, the philipines, or use it to fund their next loving act of terrorism....? "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:18 PM:

" Most Americans couldn't care less about the lives of Iraqis. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died as a result of the illegal, immoral invasion and occupation of their nation led by the U.S. Supporters of the war/invasion are responsible for for those deaths. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the invasion, but they are now. President Bush's arrogance and ignorance led to the current fiasco. Now you want to know how I'd solve the problem? How I'd solve the problem caused by those who have previously mocked, ridiculed, marginalized and ignored anti-war protesters? Now you ask? Now? "

JimClark wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:15 AM:

" Well, the Nazi didn't declare war, they just sank our ships. "

Sandra wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:35 AM:

" Madison, you state, "How I'd solve the problem caused by those who have previously mocked, ridiculed, marginalized and ignored anti-war protesters? Now you ask? Now?" Well yes, Madison, I believe that is EXACTLY what I ask you NOW. But I do have to point out that there was not a very big protest to us going in pre Iraq. My voice was one of those who expressed alarm at this move by our government. I expressed alarm because I knew, based on my knowledge of terrorists and terorism, that this would be the reality we see today. I knew that people like you would not have the fortitude to see through what we started, and that pulling out early would leave us far worse off than we were before. So I ask you now, why do you not care about Iraq, and it's people? Do you wish us to pull out now so that we can be punished for our actions, in the way of many, many Iraqis being killed, and much more funding available to terrorists, in the form of Iraqi oil? Of course we won't hear much about the killing of Iraqi's by Al Qaeda, just as we did not hear much about the killing fields of Cambodia, or what has happened in Sudan, until after the fact. I guess not having to hear about it until after, makes it OK with you??? My son is in the Air Force, working with the Preditor drone. I know the length's they go to in ensuring the safety of inncoent citizens in Iraq. The terrorists are the ones who do not care about innocents. And I guess neither do you. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Mar 1, 2008 9:52 AM:

" Sandra's guess is wrong. I do care about the people in Iraq. All of them. I also care about the rule of law. U.S. law. International law. Do you? President Bush and supporters of the illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq have an interesting way of expressing their outrage over Saddam Hussein's crimes. "

glenroy wrote on Mar 1, 2008 1:16 PM:

" Gee Madison...you ought to save yourself the agony and just link your comments to ‘moveon’ it’s a great sight to see where Democrats in control the their party intend to take this nation....right up Soros’s felonious rear end....anybody wonder why he can’t travel to Russia? France? Israel? Without ending up in jail? "

Sandra wrote on Mar 1, 2008 4:56 PM:

" Madison, You have an interesting way of showing you care, by advocating leaving inoocent Iraqi citizens in Al Qaed's hands. You can be in deniel of the reality of the situation all you want. You have that luxury, since you are safe in your home. Iraqi citizens do not. It has been a continuing pattern in recent years of the U.S. getting involved in things and then cutting and running before we see them through. This is irresponsible, and selfish. This is not how I wish our country to be viewed by the rest of the world. It does not surprise me that many citizens in our country advocate continuing this behavior, in light of the selfish attitudes we seem to embrace as a country. It needs to stop. We made this situation come to a head in Iraq. We need to morally be responsible for what we have done, and do our utmost to make sure the Iraqi's have a stable government before we leave. I fine anything else reprehensible, and dangerous. "

russ wrote on Mar 1, 2008 6:39 PM:

" Oh Oh! It's time for fact checker russ. Mad Jay, please provide your source for your assertion that "Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died as a result of the illegal, immoral invasion and occupation of their nation led by the U.S." That is not true. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:33 AM:

" It's difficult to provide an accurate count of Iraqi civilians killed since the U.S.-led, illegal, immoral invasion of that nation. The most conservative estimates put the count at ONLY 80,000. Others put the count well over the 200,000 figure. Hundreds of thousands of surviving Iraqis have left the country and are living as refugees elsewhere. Al Qaeda was the sworn enemy of Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda is only one of many groups now using violence to achieve their ends in Iraq. Al Qaeda is a relatively small group in Iraq. Every dollar spent by the U.S. to fight in Iraq ($12 billion per month) is borrowed. The U.S. is bankrupting itself and mortgaging the future of its younger generation by continuing a failed occupation. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:34 AM:

" Perhaps Soros can travel to France with Henry Kissinger, where they can both turn themselves in to the authorities. The French would like to speak with Henry Kissinger about those war crimes for which he's responsible. "

Sandra wrote on Mar 2, 2008 12:26 PM:

" Madison. absolutely right, Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization in Iraq. There a a few, all trying to gain the superior foothold in this country. And I find it quite unbelieveable that you still advocate throwing the Iraqi's to these wolves because you feel we entered the country unjustly. I find it reprehensible that because a certain portion of our population feels we did something wrong, it is OK that the Iraqi's pay for our error.... All the while claiming to CARE about the Iraqi's. Your logic totally escapes me. As for being a failed occupation....well, only if the likes of you gets your way. "

kdbk wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:53 PM:

" Golle gee, todd adams, you mean there are differences between the current war in Iraq and other past wars our nation has fought? Talk about someone MISSING the point by a MILE. So, once again, more slowly this time:
It is not wise to judge the merits and the long-term results of the war in Iraq at this point. Throughout our nation's history, people like you have carelessly decided that a war is wrong, lost, bad or otherwise misguided, well before it is over and the eventual results are fully realized. Presidents, just like Bush today, have had to endure the scorn of people like you who couldn't clear the smudge on your lenses enough to maybe just see a little ways in to the future...to a better place that comes as a result of war and sacrifice.

The comparisons abound from past to present and they are extremely relevant. So Saddam didn't have Hitler's army, or Japan's navy. Thus, according to your logic, he simply could not have ever posed such a dangersous threat to peace regardless of how long he was left unattended. What a massively ignorant perspective. "

russ wrote on Mar 5, 2008 9:32 PM:

" So 80,000+ Iraqi's have died during the war promulgated by Al Qaeda in Iraq, terrorist attacks, suicide bombers and mujahideen killers. I wonder how many Iraqi's have been saved by the benevolent American protectors in Iraq. Once we have killed most of the jihadists in Iraq, peace will find fertile ground and we can come home. Thank you America. "

rogers wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:43 AM:

" I am so tired of the Bush administration apologists insisting we must continue this war until "victory with honor". Sounds like Richard Nixon and Vietnam all over again. When will you people realize that a free society/nation cannot win a war instigated on lies. Ultimately the people will reject the original "logic". Unless you are willing to curtail the press and the very process you participate in here. This war was a grievous error, it cannot be turned into the butterfly you desire. We have no high moral ground there and to insist that we have to "fix it" before we leave is pure folly. It cannot be fixed by us, we are the problem there. We now have to make some very unpleasant economic decisions for our own future. When this administration removed Saddam Hussein, they removed the lid from a pressure cooker of cultural and religious hate. If we do not leave Iraq, we will bleed ourselves into a third world economic status. Al Qaeda has us right where they want us. We have no friends in this dog fight. What this administration and the Democrats now so desperately want is another Iraqi strong-arm military leader who will take charge and once again suppress the ancient discord so we can leave. Welcome Saddam II. And what other style of government is available in the Middle East? When will the flag-waving idiots realize that just because democracy works here, it is not necessarily a solution for the rest of the world yet. We do not have the moral obligation to force it down everyone's throat. George Bush was right when he said we will be fighting the terrorists for a long time. But best call Iraq what it is before it destroys us. "

Sandra wrote on Mar 6, 2008 6:27 PM:

" Rogers, You base your argument on very faulty premises. The whole "lie" thing is debatable, the whole "strong arm military leader" thing is way off base, as illustrated by the attempt to set up a government with elections, the only thing you got right is "the lid is off the pressure cooker" and that we have few friends in Iraq. You know why??? Because it is now over run by terrorists and these guys are not the Iraqi's freinds either. We are not the problem, terrorism is the problem. If we follow your logic, then we should never take a stand against terroism, and should just sit back and let them rule the world, because to take a stand against them costs too much money. Brilliant.... "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:49 PM:

" According to economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has increased the national deficit by $2 billion dollars. Because every dollar of that has been borrowed, it might be a deficit that Americans will NEVER pay off. The U.S. spends more on its military than all other countries in the world combined. Nevertheless, many Americans quiver in fear and call for more spending and more war. I believe that no amount of killing and military spending will quash their illogical fears. Recently, Iran began trading oil in its own currency instead of dollars. Look forward to a new calls for war against Iran later this year. In the meantime, watch the value of the dollar continue to plummet. "

rogers wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:06 PM:

" So Sandra - "the whole lie thing is debatable..." Really! Do you remember the two most prominent experts on Iraqi WMD were Hans Blix and Scott Ritter. These people had intimate knowledge of the situation but they were effectively ignored and muzzled by this administration which insisted on manufacturing evidence. They used David Kay as the WMD expert who spent most of his time attacking Blix and Ritter. Ultimately, he returned from Iraq shamed by the same conclusions.

And remember Paul O'Neil, this administration's first Secretary of the Treasury? His book reveals that from their first meetings, the invasion of Iraq was a forgone conclusion replete with maps showing the new oil lease sites that American and European corporations would develop. But the lie I spoke of is the deliberate deception of this nation's people who ultimately pay the highest price for this administration's duplicity. Did you learn nothing from the Vietnam War? It's a matter of trust and that trust is now broken. Two-thirds of the American people now think this war was a mistake. "

rogers wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:13 AM:

" And Sandra - as to "the attempt to set up a government with elections..." Do the names Ahmed Chalabi and Ilyad Allawi mean anything to you? Both men spent most of their lives exiled from Iraq. Both men were our intended leaders for Iraq. But the Iraqis saw through this sham and voted in Nuri al-Maliki as prime minister. He's not what our current government wants but the Iraqi people spoke loud and clear. Here's a hint - he doesn't like us!

The fact that we are now supporting the very Sunni clans we kicked out of power, demonstrates that we don't trust the Shia led government. I'm afraid "the strong-arm military leader who will take charge..." is more a reality than you want to admit. But when Iraq's government implodes in sectarian strife, it will either be a powerful military figure we have trained (the usual scenario) or a powerful religious leader with a sizable personal army. Does the name Muqta Al Sadr ring a bell?

We have few friends in this war, not as you state, "because it s now over run with terrorists..." but because we refused to pay attention to international law and the United Nations. We bullied and bribed a number of our allies into participating in this deception. Remember the Coalition-of-the-Willing? As predicted they are mostly gone and we are alone in this pretense. And, according to our own DOD reports, most of the terrorism in Iraq is still brought about by the home-grown resistance with help from Al Qaeda, Iran and Syria. Al Qaeda wasn't there until we went there.

If you and your friends feel it is in our best interest to remain in Iraq, perhaps you would prefer to pay for it yourselves? "

Sandra wrote on Mar 7, 2008 7:53 AM:

" Rogers, you seem to think we have the power to take over Iraq's government, despite there being democratic elections. I think you are wrong. As For the old WMD argument...there was evidence of portions of WMD's showing up in Syria.....I am afraid the facts will never be known, by you or me. So you can rail about WMD's all you want, in my eyes, your argument will never hold water....it is a moot point as we are dealing with the reality of TODAY. As for the United Nations? Well that is a whole other subject, and from the behavior I see displayed by the UN, I think we should NOT listen to what they want. As for Al Qaeda not being there until we went there, again, incorrect. Al Qaeda was meeting surreptisiously within Iraq borders. Saddam, turned a blind eye, as long as Al Qaeda caused no problems in Iraq. Now, Al Qaeda is there, along with a few other groups, as I predicted they would be if we invaded Iraq. We are dealing NOW with terrorism. You think we should let it run amouk, in a country we invaded, and as a result, opened the door to terrorism's attempts to take over. I think we morally have a debt to the Iraqi's to stay until a stable government forms. No matter how long it takes. The result of this would be a safer world for everyone. You wish for a destabilized country, run by terrorists because it is just to expensive to stand against them. I think it is too expensive NOT to stand against them. Also foolish, and crazy, in light of what terrorist's are willing to do and capable of, once they have Iraqi oil money. "

rogers wrote on Mar 9, 2008 12:46 AM:

" Ahhh Sandra...of course I want stability in Iraq, I just don't think it is possible. I don't want to see one more child harmed there or here. You argue we should not listen to the UN. Well it's a fractious environment but it is the only major forum this planet has to work out our differences. Part of the reason we are in Iraq is because this administration decided the rule of law and international agreements no longer applied to them. Remember that Cheney disparaged our European allies as "old Europe". Well "old Europe" tried to warn us but we didn't listen. Your insistence that we are dealing NOW with terrorism CANNOT preclude what happened in the past because it affects how two-thirds of the American people and most of the rest of the world evaluate our "War on Terrorism". We had the sentiment of the world on our side when we invaded Afghanistan but that is now going badly also. We have invested too much in Iraq. And still Osama bin Laden is free to create havoc. The dollar is sinking like a lead weight, 3 million Californians will probably lose their homes this year, and we are almost ten trillion dollars in debt, half of which is directly attributable to this "War President" (his term, not mine. We cannot make the Iraqi people cooperate with each other if they don't wish to. Does your epiphany of moral responsibility extend to your own country? If we go broke in the process of trying to make right what we so foolishly botched, how will we continue to fight terrorism effectively? Fighting terrorism in Iraq is not efficient. Time to rethink what we are doing there and restructure our priorities and efforts in a more strategic manner. "

Sandra wrote on Mar 9, 2008 10:31 AM:

" Rogers, have to ask...did you read the original article that this blog focused on? Your claims fall short in light of it. "

glenroy wrote on Mar 9, 2008 3:05 PM:

" Rogers....way, way too much CNN and moveon videos. Blix is a pathetically bitter discredited borderline Marxist whose red-resume is full of anti-American articles and endless rationalizing Soviet atrocities.. Ritter..wise way behind the curve. Ritter was fired from every government job he ever had... not to mention convicted attempted molester. How about legitimate sources?

Name a nationally recognized Political Scientist, either moderate left or right, that has not been overwhelmingly impressed with the surge? The fact is the ‘surge’ has brought a ‘tidal surge’ among leading political scientists complementing the results...all that remains are bitter partisans such as....

Your problem, Rogers, is that you haven’t a relevant argument, just complaints..when ‘we’ supported the Shia you complained we’re siding against the Sunni, ‘we’ supported the Sunni you complain about that too. Even complaining when the Iraqi government gets around to implementing conciliatory reforms towards the Sunni. If, Iraq is in the mists of a civil war, obviously not, or even if it was a mistake, as you insinuate, to temporarily appoint dispossessed Iraqi nationals to govern, it did buy needed time to commence piecing together a complicated mosaic of Iraqi fractions...our policies have proven to be remarkably effective, while mistakes are only relevant if left uncorrected..it is the art of war.

In the context of the 9/11, those who truly understood the magnitude of this threat could not have imagined that 8 years hence the political, military/intelligence, regional and geopolitical landscape could have improved in our favor this dramatically...no thanks to partisans. Additionally, if not more importantly, it is quite likely that within 12-24 months Iraq will have the most effective anti-terrorist military in the entire Middle East...being the only staunch regional anti-terrorist ally. In the end all is good, so far.
"

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Mar 10, 2008 10:33 PM:

" I made a mistake in my last post. I said that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has increased the national deficit by $2 billion dollars. Of course, that's nonsense. The real cost of Bush's failed war/occupation will come to at least $3 trillion. According to an article in today's Napa Valley Register (3/10/2008), the U.S. occupation of Iraq is costing approximately $12 bilion per month. This occupation's #1 goal seems to be the plundering of the U.S. Treasury. I doubt the terrorists could do much more damage to the U.S. economy than the Bush Administration already has through it's incompetent bungling. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Mar 11, 2008 5:17 PM:

" After reviewing hundreds of thousands of captured Iraqi documents, a Pentagon-sponsored review has found no evidence of operational links between Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terror network, a McClatchy article has recently reported. Sandra ought to back up her assertion with evidence, though I don't think she can. "

Sandra wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:32 AM:

" Madison, Where in the world did I say there was " evidence of operational links between Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terror network"?? I said Saddam turned a blind eye to Al Qaeda meeting within his borders. Big Difference.....As for Saddam's support of terrorism, it is well documented that he offered suicide bombers money for their families..."Apr 3, 2002 ... (CBS) Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has raised the amount offered to relatives of suicide bombers from $10000 per family to $25000, .......Since Iraq upped its payments last month, 12 suicide bombers have successfully struck inside Israel, including one man who killed 25 Israelis, many of them elderly, as they sat down to a meal at a hotel to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Passove"....

"

Sandra wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:42 AM:

" Madison, Now, to address in more detail your misconception of my word's... I am aware of the article, and it is not what I claimed. I think that because Al Qeada was meeting surrepticiously within Iraq's borders there was some indirect communication between Saddam and this organization. I have never thought it went as far as it was claimed to by our government, though there was preliminary evidence that needed to be looked into. If you are going to address my comments and challenge them, I think it is important that you comprehend them first. "

glenroy wrote on Mar 12, 2008 12:37 PM:

" Hold your horses Madison...how many documented links were found in the millions of ‘documents’ regarding the slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Kurds...zero.... how many documents were found linking the passing of WMD to Sudan..zero.. Yet anyone with a pulse would know the Kurds were slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands and the Sudan has forced to confirmed from documents found in Afghanistan that Saddam indeed transferred WMD manufacturing technology to Sudan and they in turn to al Qaeda..but if you’re waiting on a paper trail you’re fooling yourself. Additionally, the Sunni tribes were virtually all working with al Qaeda 6 to 9 months prior to the liberation setting up what became their failed insurgency...you find factors where they are not were you wish. I’ve read your posts denying WMD....they’ve found enough Iraqi WMD in pieces and tonnage to wipe out several large American Cities...but why bother with the facts when they work against your hypothesis. "

rogers wrote on Mar 12, 2008 1:48 PM:

" Unfortunately, Sandra, you use the same vague innuendo that this administration has used from the beginning to link Iraq, Al-Qaeda and terrorism. Your assumptions that Saddam Hussein had "indirect communication" with Al-Qaeda who were "meeting surreptitiously within Iraq's borders" is once again not backed up by any solid evidence from our intelligence agencies, otherwise it would have been presented loud and clear from the Bush administration.

Hussein had a strong distrust of fanatical religious sects. He was a strong-arm politician and commander who saw most religious extremists as a threat to his existence. He had little trust of the Shiite clerics in Iraq and their support from their extremist Iranian counterparts.

Remember that Osama bin Laden hated the Saudi Sunni power structure and they ejected him from their realm on threat of death. He was as much a threat to Saddam Hussein as he was to the Saudi royalty.

Had Al-Qaeda attempted to set up camp in Saddam's Iraq, they probably would have been escorted to the border or prison.

There is no question that Saddam Hussein attempted to support the PLO's actions against Israel. Whether or not his promised pay-offs to Hamas or PLO families actually happened is another question. Certainly our $25 million reward for info leading to Osama's capture/death hasn't worked very well.

As to glenroy's assertion that Hans Blix and Scott Ritter were not credible sources, well they were right, weren't they? David Kay (the Bush administration's lackey) slithered back to Washington and testified that there appeared to be no WMDs found since UNSCOM's dismantling of Iraq's munitions, nuclear and biological weapons in the 1990's. Nor was there any evidence that the former programs had been resurrected.

Sorry folks the "evidence" is not in your court. "

rogers wrote on Mar 12, 2008 2:19 PM:

" And one last item Sandra - hot off the presses! The Washington Post just reported that "an examination of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents, audio and video records collected by U.S. forces since the March 2003 invasion has concluded that there is "no smoking gun" supporting the Bush administration's prewar assertion of an "operational relationship" between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist network..."

The review was conducted for the military's Joint Forces Command by the Alexandria-based Institute for Defense Analyses.

Quit trying to prop up this lame administration's record of deceit and abuse. "

Sandra wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:26 AM:

" Rogers...hello...hot off the press? Madison already quoted from this article, and I already said I was familiar with it. My point to him and now you, is that in your enthusiasm to "Prove me wrong" you miss what I am saying. If this is how you both look at issues, I can certainly understand how you both think as you do. I suggest you take off your blinders, and quit misconstruing other's words. I am not proping "up this lame administration's record of deceit and abuse". I am calling them as I see them. Who are you to admonish me when you conduct yourself in this manner? "

glenroy wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:02 PM:

" It is nonsense to claim that as a secular Pan-Arabist, Saddam wouldn't or in this case didn't provide support for al qaeda...ridiculous without foundation, propagated 'excuses' for Clinton failures, particularly Madam Secretary. The Arab proverb 'the enemy of my enemy, is my friend' is the Arab mindset dating to 'the' prophet. It is more difficult to find a Pan Arab secularist who has not provided Islamists aid.. the Baathists regimes in both Iraq and Syria did, leftist secularists in Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

FACT:
Saddam set up Kurdish al Qaeda, al anslar Islam the first known al qaeda franchise, in northeast Iraq prior to 9 /11 and at the time of liberation had built up forces exceeding 1,500 fanatics..it was the primary military objective of our northern front which we all know did not materialize as planned. It is also documented that Saddam had an intelligent agent present at al qaeda's 9/11 organization meeting in Malaysia.

Shortly after 9/11 Saddam had made teaching the radical Islamist ideology mandatory in all schools.

Shortly after 9/11 Saddam laid the ground for the Sunni uprising, this a deal between 'Iraqi/al qaeda' as the plan against invasion completely missed by our intelligence...this is documented on any number of websites as well as the BBC.

It is inconceivable to think that today, had we not removed Saddam and according to his own statements prior to the party, the Iraqi WMD programs would have been fully reconstituted, it's even false to continue claiming no WMD were found, we have about 10 tons of WMD artillery shells, plus thousands of gallons of illegal chemical precursors which could be converted to WMD as easily and mixing the ingredients..

Don't let Obama surrender after victory.....
"

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Mar 15, 2008 5:02 PM:

" Since the illegal, immoral U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, gasoline prices in the U.S. have tripled. The governments of Iran and Iraq are now dominated by Shiites. It can be argued that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq can be considered a "win" for Iran. Iran's leader was warmly greeted when recently visiting Iraq. Can anybody imagine a U.S. leader being so warmly greeted by Iraqis? In the future, will U.S. oil companies secure control of Iraqi oil reserves or net huge profits from the sale of Iraqi oil? Is it possible that the U.S. will run out of soldiers, supplies and money with which to continue the occupation of Iraq? "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: