Obama and the Status of Forces Agreement

SOFA notwithstanding, Its wonderful to be leaving Iraq. What happens between now and 2011
will be interesting. I fear a situation that basicly picks up where the pre-surge left off.
– Iraq in turmoil and US troops sitting in the middle of it.

We will be spared the 30 years of Viet Nam recriminations… Boy, that's good news.

Unfortunately we will have killed over 4000 of our troops, a hundred thousand of theirs, wounded many other thousands of ours and theirs, and destroyed a countries infrastructure all for a LIE.

I would suggest as part of the withdrawal plan we make a check list to be titled the WAR LIST.

It would be a check list that covers all the things we have learned about “Preemptive War”, “Insurrection war”, “War between internal national groups”, “War I want to fight because it good for …(Oil, Ego, etc.), Political Area Domination war”, and “Enemy Combatant torturing and management problems”, and finally “extrication of forces and political consequences of leaving.”

It could start with headings such as:

Is there ironclad, verifiable, reliable, objective intelligence of the threat?
Is there a realistic threat to the US or its treaty ally?
Can the threat be communicated to Congress and the American People/?
What assets will be needed?
What is the time line?
What is the projected cost?
What specifically and completely are the goals of the action?
What is the reliability of the above data?
What are the projected casualties, ours and theirs?

These are just the beginning, but you get the idea and I hope the purpose.

We did not learn our lesson in Viet Nam, I don't believe we learned our lesson in Iraq. We obviously haven't because we are going to do it all over again in spades in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Ask your self why we went into the Afghan/Pakistan war. Are we still engaged their for the same purpose?
If not, did Congress or we as the people agree to the new purpose? Did we agree to commit our sons/daughters and non-existent treasure for the new purpose or new time line?

Obviously we better ask ourselves and our “leaders” quick before we are engaged in a “Russian Quagmire.” You remember how the Afghans and others handed the Russians their head when they tried to accomplish their Russian goals in the area.

Are we in danger of not only not learning from the Viet Nam experience, the Iraq experience, and even the Russian's experience? We better answer that question quick!!!!

Those that do not learn from history are DOOMED to repeat it.

You may or may not be right on being spared the 30 years of recriminations as to who won, but I don't think that is the important point.

We, unfortunately as a Nation, and not as a WAR ADMINISTRATION THAT LIED US INTO THIS WAR, will be subject to recriminations for as long as history is written with less than scrupulous accuracy. The debate will be were we justified in going to war in Iraq?

In reality who won seems less important than why did we attack Iraq. The doctrine of preemptive war if it was ever accepted intellectually is certainly shown to be faulty in practice by the Iraq war.

The urgent and deadly reason for an immediate war based on WMDs shows the dangers of a willing and malleable press, not to mention the need for an overhaul of the intelligence community, and a Congress that would rather go along than do its oversight function.

A useless Congress, one that always gives away its responsibility of declaring war, because it is either afraid of the next election or is playing party politics, is an example of the need for electing a President that has no party affiliation. By that I mean we should publicly fund the Presidential candidates and the elections based on their qualifications, debate performance and proposed policies, and etc. No candidate would be allowed to claim alliance with a political party and in this way maybe Congress could be freed to do its work.

Perhaps this type of election and the resultant non partisan administration would enable the Congress to get back to work, and to forgo decisions and opposition based solely on partisan politics. Perhaps Congress could debate with the President, the public and each other for what is best for the Country and not just how to sabotage the policies of the President because he is a member of the opposing party.

If we could accomplish all this then I would say we won the war, at least we won something. Until then the argument is why and how we were lied into going to war with Iraq.

In the interim I hope the silent cry of over 4000 young men and women will last long enough to prevent the next preemptive war.

Finally war is the final act and failure of diplomacy. War is for DEFENSE. And, If there has to be a debate as to who won the war we obviously lost.

You may or may not be right on being spared the 30 years of recriminations as to who won, but I don't think that is the important point.

We, unfortunately as a Nation, and not as a WAR ADMINISTRATION THAT LIED US INTO THIS WAR, will be subject to recriminations for as long as history is written with less than scrupulous accuracy. The debate will be were we justified in going to war in Iraq?

In reality who won seems less important than why did we attack Iraq. The doctrine of preemptive war if it was ever accepted intellectually is certainly shown to be faulty in practice by the Iraq war.

The urgent and deadly reason for an immediate war based on WMDs shows the dangers of a willing and malleable press, not to mention the need for an overhaul of the intelligence community, and a Congress that would rather go along than do its oversight function.

A useless Congress, one that always gives away its responsibility of declaring war, because it is either afraid of the next election or is playing party politics, is an example of the need for electing a President that has no party affiliation. By that I mean we should publicly fund the Presidential candidates and the elections based on their qualifications, debate performance and proposed policies, and etc. No candidate would be allowed to claim alliance with a political party and in this way maybe Congress could be freed to do its work.

Perhaps this type of election and the resultant non partisan administration would enable the Congress to get back to work, and to forgo decisions and opposition based solely on partisan politics. Perhaps Congress could debate with the President, the public and each other for what is best for the Country and not just how to sabotage the policies of the President because he is a member of the opposing party.

If we could accomplish all this then I would say we won the war, at least we won something. Until then the argument is why and how we were lied into going to war with Iraq.

In the interim I hope the silent cry of over 4000 young men and women will last long enough to prevent the next preemptive war.

Finally war is the final act and failure of diplomacy. War is for DEFENSE. And, If there has to be a debate as to who won the war we obviously lost.