ShareThisGen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker went to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to update Congress on the war in Iraq. The good news? Violence has been reduced. The bad news? The security gains are fragile. Petraeus recommended leaving at least 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq after July, with a review of troop levels after that.When will America's involvement in Iraq end? Is victory still possible? How can it be achieved? Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis, moderators of RedBlueAmerica.com, weigh in.Ben Boychuk:For some people, America simply can't succeed in Iraq. Even in the face of tactical victory. It's impossible. No matter what happens, no matter how many terrorists we capture or kill, no matter what Petraeus says, no matter what the data show, it's just a lost cause.We hear that the surge gains are illusory. Really? That would require ignoring the fact that U.S. and Iraqi forces have captured more terrorist weapons caches in the first three months of this year than in all of 2006. Or the fact that civilian casualties remain substantially below where they were at the height of sectarian violence in that same year. Or the fact that in the late battle of Basra, Iraqi security forces, backed by U.S. troops, killed, wounded or captured more insurgents in the course of a week than Americans managed to kill or capture during the height of the surge just six months ago.And we also hear reports that the fighting against the Mahdi Army in Basra, Baghdad and southern Iraq was not a stupendous victory. So what? A victory is a victory is a victory. It doesn't need to be pretty. It doesn't even need to be a 100 percent, all-or-nothing outcome. It just needs to be good enough to build upon the next time. Sen. Joe Lieberman had the best line at the Petraeus hearings. Lieberman described his former party's line on the war as "hear no progress in Iraq, see no progress in Iraq and, most of all, speak of no progress in Iraq." Facts are dangerous things. That's been the story of the surge all along. And they don't call it a long war for nothing.Joel Mathis:To determine if victory is possible in Iraq, we should ask three questions: What are our goals in Iraq? What must be done to achieve those goals? Are we willing to do those things?President Bush says we're trying to create a unified, stable and democratic Iraq that can be an ally in the war on terror. We're clearly not there yet: Iraq's different ethnic groups still regard each other warily, the party of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has close ties to Iran and the recent battle of Basra shows the government can't yet defeat the Shiite militias. In the meantime, our presence in Iraq is creating more terrorists than it is killing.Petraeus' counterinsurgency manual suggests 540,000 U.S. troops are needed to pacify Iraq; he's trying to win with just 140,000. The military can't spare any more troops: The Army is lowering its standards to hit recruiting targets, but officials worry the United States still doesn't have enough troops to respond to another crisis in the world. And there are no moves afoot to significantly expand American troop strength.There's little evidence the Bush administration is winning, or that it can or will do what's needed to win Iraq. It is trying not to lose, which isn't the same thing, and that might be making us less safe. Better to withdraw and start rebuilding our defenses.(To join the debate, go to redblueamerica.com.)(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.scrippsnews.com)
Surging ahead or ignoring reality in Iraq?
Submitted by SHNS on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 16:00
Paying taxes unites us. It also divides us. People can pay five and even six times more in state and local taxes than other folks in similar circumstances making similar incomes.
Who's got your number?
In one of the fastest-growing forms of identity theft, crooks are stealing tax refunds by swiping personal information and using it to trick the Internal Revenue Service.
The US can suceed in Iraq but they won't
The US can suceed in Iraq but they won't. Not for the often spouted reasons that liberals are undermining the war effort but becuase the Republicans initiated an illegal war, didn't and still don't understand the nature of their adversary and still can't interested in learning. They also sought to fight the war on the cheap, sacked anyone who disagreed with them and have not put their own bodies on the line.
They are prolonging the war merely so they can blame their defeat on their sucessors, realistic victory is no longer politically or militarily possible.
The US can suceed in Iraq but they won't
The US can succeed in Iraq but they won't. Not for the often spouted reasons that liberals are undermining the war effort but because the Republicans initiated an illegal war, didn't and still don't understand the nature of their adversary and apparently are still not prepared to learn. They also sought to fight the war on the cheap, sacked anyone who disagreed with them and have not put their own bodies on the line.
They are prolonging the war merely so they can blame their defeat on their successors and represent themselves as the party that doesn’t consist of ‘quitters’; realistic victory is no longer politically or militarily possible.