Korean Job Discussion Forums

[fiveeagles]

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Perhaps it was the mental stress of preparing for a book tour in which she had to sell a marriage-destroying affair as a heartwarming memory. But before her book was released, Barbara Walters had this to say to Elisabeth Hasselbeck about Iraq on "The View" on April 8, 2008:

Hasselbeck: I think the surge has probably been one of the most effective strategies in this war.

Walters: No, it has not.

Hasselbeck: Oh, I disagree I think it absolutely has.

Walters: I think a few weeks ago it was considered that. Now there has been more violence than there has been in many months.

First of all, a "few weeks" of an upturn in violence shouldn't negate "many months" of progress. But was Barbara Walters even right?

Looking at the site icasualties.org provides the answers. There had been a short-term spike in violence, but only compared with already significantly decreased post-surge levels.

Even with this spike, in the three weeks prior to her comments, coalition troop death rates had fallen by 62 percent from the previous May and were lower than the average rate of every previous year of the war.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can look back and ask: Was this really a sign of an upcoming turn for the worse in Iraq?

The following month after Walter's comments, May 2008, held the lowest rate of troop fatalities of any month since the beginning of the war -- as they decreased by 84 percent since the same month a year earlier. I'm not sure if Hasselbeck received an apology.

This is not to say that Iraq won't become more violent -- the situation is still delicate. And, I'm not trying to beat up on Barbara Walters, she herself pointed out that she's no expert on these matters, and she's surely a legendary journalist.

But she's not alone in trying to dismiss the successes of the surge with such certainty and such lack of evidence.

It seems that for so many in the media and elsewhere, there is an incredible desire to find the negative. It's an unquenchable thirst. How else could an essentially fired former press secretary's questionable claims about the war be more important to cover than improvement in the actual war?

Terrorism worldwide has decreased by 40 percent since 2001, according to a Canadian study. The Iraqis have gained control of Basra and Sadr City. Iraqi oil outputs have hit a post-war high.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker said, "You are not going to hear me say that al Qaeda is defeated, but they've never been closer to defeat than they are now."

CIA Director Michael Hayden says we are witnessing, "near strategic defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al Qaeda globally." He says Osama bin Laden had "largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq War to recruit adherents," according to The Washington Post. Such claims warrant a close and sober inspection, but the momentum is unquestionably on our side.

Yet, after a solid year of significant gains, pessimism still rules.

This is not a new phenomenon. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote "as many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results." They made this statement on June 13, 2007 -- three days before the surge was even fully implemented and three months before the military had said it was fair to judge the progress.

I'm not na�ve. I understand that regardless of the actual progress, they were going to say it wasn't working anyway. But if I may borrow some Eliot Spitzer-esque language: Don't we pay them enough to at least fake their sincerity?

I have been a supporter of our efforts in Iraq from the beginning, although I've harshly criticized our tactics many times. But, it's important to recognize what an opportunity we have right now.

We can win.

This is not about politics. Our winning this war does not mean that you have to vote for John McCain. I might not even vote for McCain.

Some Democrats have claimed responsibility for the success of the surge, saying that they forced Bush into changing strategies. Fine.

Nancy Pelosi says some of the success of the surge is based on the "the goodwill of the Iranians." Whatever. We can argue about that later. After we've won.

I'm not asking you to think the war was a good idea, I'm just asking you to think winning the war is a good idea. We know where we've been. Now, let's all honestly look at where we are. We haven't seen a situation this promising for some time, let's take advantage of it. I'm sure Barbara Walters will agree.

[Kimbop]

I think we should leave Iraq. Let's let an ayatollah take over the country and impose harsh bruitality on his own people, all for the sake of alla.

We wouldn't want 4000 American troops to die, heavens no. (Nevermind that we lost more than 400,000 troops in WW2 fighting German nazi evil. Now we face a greater evil that has engulfed more than a billion people, but nevermind that. And nevermind that 4000 troops is a walk in the park in comparison to WW2)

Also nevermind that leftists like Tommy Douglas refused to acknowledge nazi germany as a threat until it was too late.

Let's continue to let insanity proliferate in the middle east. After all, it's not our problem. Yes, let's fill our cars with cheap gas, eat mangos year-round, and not worry ourselves with islamists who breed like rabbits and spread their insanity with the sword. Let's never mind the thousands of displaced Kurds, the oppressed jews, Christians, women and gays. *


* The US rebuilt Japan, South Korea, and Germany, and is now rebuilding Iraq. Leaving Iraq now would have dire consequences for the entire world, especially the middle east. It would turn into a clone of Iran; an islamofascist state that oppresses women and kills apostates and gays.

Just imagine the success of democracy in Iraq. Imagine how much killing it would prevent in the long run. Look at a map--- see the madness that has proliferated in many of Iraq's neighbors. Now imagine if Iraq and some of its neighbours started embracing freedom and contributed something to humanity. It is not an 'if', but 'when' the west has to change the middle east. Leftists say it isn't our responsibility, but I think it is.

And we whine about 4000 troops? Whine about Dieppe. Don't whine about US involvement in Iraq. We are building schools, doing humanitarian work, and spreading logic and education. Is Bush the bad guy? Or is the dictator who celebrates public executions?

[JMO]

double post

[JMO]

[Ya-ta Boy]

Define 'win'.

It's easy enough when you're fighting a conventional war against a government and that government surrenders. What does win mean in the present situation?

At least part of the definition would be when a government controls all its territory and borders and is doing its own reconstruction. Is this happening?

[Kuros]

[RJjr]

We're going to lose in Iraq for the same reason we lost in Vietnam: nationalism.

When I was watching CNN a couple of months ago, "our" Iraqis were going into Sadr City and they looked like they were about to shit their fatigues as one of our soldiers was cheerleading them, saying something like, "We're behind you 100%." Our enemies in Iraq, just like in Vietnam, are self-motivated just by knowing outsiders are trying to run their country.

A better poll might be: Who has been the lamer fighting force? ARVN in the Vietnam War or the Iraqis on our side in the Iraq War

[Gopher]

[RJjr]

There won't be a winner in this war. Everyone is going to walk away from this one a loser.

[Gopher]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

...

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

Saddam continued to threaten Kuwait, He did support terror , he did try to kill a US president. He did shot at US planes. In 1950 North Korea never attacked the US. Saddam's Iraq and the way the mideast was was a far greater danger to the US then North Korea was in 1950. If Saddam Hussein had been allowed to gain gulf oil and nuclear weapons Iraq would have been a powerful nation.






Saddam's Iraq was out to conquer the gulf and use its oil to blackmail the US.Iran has similar agenda , maybe even more.Al Qaeda seeks to create a fascistic caliphate by its nature would be a threat to the US. for the record Al Qaeda was weaker than Iran or Iraq and they did quite a bit of damage.


The US needs to get the Bathists , the KHomeni followers and the Al Qaedists to give up thier war. Cause what goes on in the mideast is what caused 9-11. The US never invaded Iraq to invade Iraq. the US invaded Iraq to invade the middle east. There were a lot of people who enjoyed 9-11 the US wanted to destroy that joy by enraging them. Iraq is not the whole war on terror however it is part of the war on terror.The war on terror will probably be easier to win than the cold war.

The US can win the war on terror . It won the war on communism.


IF the US breaks Irans ' power . invests in alternative energy, kills those along the Afghan Pakistan border who fight for Al Qaeda and gets Saudi Arabia to violate the human rights of people who support Al Qaeda in their nation. What is that?

[Ya-ta Boy]

The analogy with Vietnam that strikes me is 'the Domino Theory'. At that time, the Commies were supposed to be planning to tip over each domino until we were fighting them on the beaches of California. Horrors!

The sons of the people who espoused that theory are now proposing another domino theory. This time it is the US proposing to tip over each domino until the Middle East wakes up free and democratic.

Having been discredited once, I'm not at all sure why these guys think it will work better in reverse. What's ironic is that the Right believed the Communists really could win because they had very scant faith in our way of life. This time they (seem to) believe we can win if we give up our way of life.

[RJjr]

When I was in Vietnam, one of my thoughts was, "Our government completely threw away the lives of over 50,000 Americans to prevent this?" The Vietnamese aren't dangerous people, no matter how many hammer & sickle flags flap in the wind there.

[Kimbop]

Please dispense with the insults.