Iraq insurgency in its 'last throes' or going strong?

[Hurin_Rules]

Seems there is a difference of opinion on this, even at the highest levels of the US government. Personally, experience has taught me not to believe a single word that comes out of Cheney's mouth, but you decide:

Iraq insurgents still strong, general says
Senate comments contrary to Cheney's view of 'last throes'

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:58 a.m. ET June 23, 2005

WASHINGTON - The top American military commander in the Persian Gulf disputed a contention by Vice President Dick Cheney that the Iraqi insurgency was in its “last throes” and told Congress on Thursday that its strength was basically undiminished from six months ago.

Furthermore, Gen. John Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago.”

In a CNN interview last month, Cheney said that “the level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee’s senior Democrat, asked Abizaid if he realized he was contradicting Cheney.

“I don’t know that I would make any comment about that other than to say there’s a lot of work to be done,” said Abizaid. “I gave you my opinion.”

Rumsfeld adds to Cheney comment
His testimony came as the nation’s top defense leaders rejected calls by some lawmakers for the Bush administration to set a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from wartorn Iraq. “That would be a mistake,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the committee.

Rumsfeld also sought to explain what Cheney meant.

Between now and when an Iraqi constitution is drafted and voted on later this year, “They may very well be in their last throes by their own view cause they recognize how important it will be if the lose,” he said.

Of Cheney’s words specifically, Rumsfeld added: “While I didn’t use them and I might not use them, I think it’s understandable that we can expect that kind of a response from the enemy.”

Rumsfeld engaged in contentious exchanges with committee Democrats.

“Isn’t it time for you to resign?” Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., asked the defense secretary, citing what he called “gross errors and mistakes” in the U.S. military campaign in Iraq.

“I’ve offered my resignation to the president twice,” Rumsfeld shot back, saying that President Bush had decided not to accept it. “That’s his call,” he said.

Unpredictable war
Rumsfeld told the committee that "timing in war is never predictable. There are never guarantees.

“Those who say we are losing this war are wrong," he added. "We are not.”

Congressional Democrats are demanding answers about the future presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Rumsfeld, testifying on the progress in training Iraq’s own security forces, said these forces have “a way to go,” but progress was being made.

“Success will not be easy and it will require patience. ... But consider what has been accomplished in 12 months,” Rumsfeld said, citing elections in January, economic improvements, and an increasingly improving security force.

The Bush administration contends that Iraqis must be able to defend their own country against a lethal insurgency before a timeline for bringing home troops can be considered.

But progress has been slower than expected. In recent weeks, insurgents have increasingly targeted Iraqi security forces. And U.S. casualties, war spending and public skepticism continue to climb, ruffling both Republicans and Democrats.

“Leaving before the task is complete would be catastrophic,” Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the panel.

Call for constitution
Levin said there was “no military settlement without a political settlement.”

He called for Iraqis to not keep putting off a vote on the drafting of a constitution. “Failure to adopt a constitution ... shows a lack of will,” he said.

“We must demonstrate to the Iraqis that our willingness to bear the burden ... has limits,” Levin said. At the same time, he said he did not support at this time a U.S.-set timetable for a U.S. exit strategy. “That policy would be counterproductive,” Levin acknowledged.

Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., praised President Bush for “steady and unflinching resolve.”

“Our great nation has an enormous capacity for sacrifice and hardship when we understand the cause is just,” he said.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8330207/

[Goofball]

Personally, I take the word of the soldier on the ground over that of Tricky-Dick seven days a week and twice on Sunday. I also agree that to set a definite timeline for withdrawal is a mistake. America is obliged to stay until the mess is cleaned up, as long as that may take.

[Redleg]

Personally, I take the word of the soldier on the ground over that of Tricky-Dick seven days a week and twice on Sunday. I also agree that to set a definite timeline for withdrawal is a mistake. America is obliged to stay until the mess is cleaned up, as long as that may take.

Both points you have made Goofball are correct in my opinion also.

Regardless on what your opinion is about the legimatancy (SP) of the war, the United States had the obligation to fix what has been broken and provided Iraqi citizens with a safe country before we depart.

[JAG]

You cannot solve a problem when your very being there IS the problem.

It is trying to create a circle with straight iron bars.

[Redleg]

You cannot solve a problem when your very being there IS the problem.

Ah so many ways to go with that - but I will stick on the topic and point the answer out to you.

Does a nation that goes to war and topples another's regime have the obligation to attempt to protect the people of that nation?

If one nation destroy's the infrastructure of the defeated nation in the warfare that commenced - does that nation have the obligation to rebuild the infrastructure so that the people can return to their quality of life?

The just being there is not the problem Jag that is attempting to make a complex issue boiled down into a simple sentence.

Do you honestly think that the second that the United States withdraws from Iraq that the violence will all of a sudden stop?

It is trying to create a circle with straight iron bars.

bad anology - apply a little heat and one can bend the bars into a circle and then weld it together to make it complete.

[Tribesman]

Does a nation that goes to war and topples another's regime have the obligation to attempt to protect the people of that nation?
I thought , strictly speaking , that the obligation ended once "power" was transferred to the Iraqi government and the coiliton ceased to be the occupying authority .
Or are you talking of a moral or practical obligation ?

You cannot solve a problem when your very being there IS the problem.
What do you suggest then JAG ? What option do you propose ? There must be options out there somewhere . Any you would like to put forward ?

Oh , just in case.....Turning back the clock and not invading isn't an option , unless you are a master of Time-travel

[JAG]

Redleg you bring up some valid points but again, I think all of them are answered, and if not answered made better, with US forces withdrawn.

Does a nation that goes to war and topples another's regime have the obligation to attempt to protect the people of that nation?

Yes, which is exactly why I state the US should withdraw their forces. That act is better for the Iraqi people than any tinkering, bombing of insurgents, initiatives etc.

There is enough other nations, far less maddening for the Iraqi people who would be willing to put in the extra troops / commit troops for the Iraqi govt. On top of that, although you dislike it, the UN would get more involved, I am sure.

Not to mention the progress with the Iraqi govt forces is getting better - albeit slowly - and they can take over far more operations / control.

If one nation destroy's the infrastructure of the defeated nation in the warfare that commenced - does that nation have the obligation to rebuild the infrastructure so that the people can return to their quality of life?

Again the situation is made best with US TROOPS withdrawing. US companies - however much I dislike it - can help rebuild the country and US technical people can help the Iraqi govt, but I fail to see why the US TROOP presence is needed for this. As stated their presence can be filled / covered.

Plus building a new infrastructure is surely better when the new infrastructure you create / the old infrastructure which remains, is not under almost constant attack. The attacks will go down with the US troops out.

Also remember the major infrastructure has already been made, the govt, Iraqi troops etc are in place. That is the hardest thing.

Do you honestly think that the second that the United States withdraws from Iraq that the violence will all of a sudden stop?

No. Not in the short term anyway. When the US withdraw I would suspect bombings would go up. However after that I am sure it would drastically go down. The major factor influencing the insurgent movement? The US in their country. Simple as that. They list it time and again as their major factor in their broadcasts and their bombings. Plus many Iraqi people have some form of sympathy with the insurgents even though they kill innocent Iraqis because they too don't want the US in their country. They do not necessarily support the insurgents but they are definitely against the US staying as long as they are - so they have an aversion of confronting and helping the Iraqi govt defeat the insurgents. With the US out, this will change.

It might not be the best solution in every situation, but over all it is the solution which fits all the problems best.

Oh and the analogy works better with unbreakable, unbendable metal bars then.