PDA

View Full Version : Clark: What's Wrong with U.S. Policy in Iraq



Gio
23 Sep 03,, 05:14
As General Wesley K. Clark wades into the Presidential race as a Democrat, his views on Iraq, the terrorist threat, and national security should be of utmost interest to the electorate. His new book, Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism and the American Empire (PublicAffairs, 2003), is, in effect, Clark's campaign manifesto, providing insights into what he believes and what he would do as Commander-in-Chief. As a book, it is a smart take on the battlefield tactics used in Iraq as well as a tough-minded critique of the military strategy and the geopolitical doctrine followed by the Bush Administration. With the campaign heating up and talk of an Iraqi "exit strategy" growing, Clark's book offers a vision that contrasts sharply with that of President George W. Bush. Agree or disagree with the four-star general, here is what he says:
-- The war in Iraq "has thus far been a perfect example of dominating an enemy force but failing to win the victory." Clark says the Administration made the classic mistake of equating the defeat of an enemy with achieving its larger political goal. That goal was to set up a democratic, stable, secular Iraq which would help stop terrorism. Clark argues that this required higher force levels and a different strategy: "Victory means not the defeat of the opposing army but rather winning the follow-through operation to accomplish the aims and intent of the plan." Too few troops on the ground going in left Saddam's Sunni heartland unconquered and rearguard supply troops vulnerable to attack. Moving unilaterally meant there were no European or other foreign troops to help in combat or policing the peace. And inadequate postwar planning meant few Arabic-speakers on hand, hardly any power generators, and no portable communications equipment. The Pentagon's war strategy, in effect, had "a profound flaw -- the endgame."

-- The war in Iraq has weakened, not strengthened, the fight against terrorism "by diverting attention, resources and leadership, alienating allied supporters and serving as a rallying point for anyone wishing to do harm to the U.S. and Americans." Clark, who was publicly against the war from the start, argues that the Bush Administration failed to make the case that Iraq was an imminent danger. More important, the Administration was caught up in the Cold War policy template of fighting states, not supranational terrorists such as al Qaeda, and was predisposed to attack Iraq well before September. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others believed that state-sponsored terrorism was the problem and that regime change could end the terrorist threat to the U.S.

Wrong, says Clark -- this policy is making the U.S. less secure. Safety can come only through joint intelligence and police work with close allies in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, he says, and through a greater focus on homeland security; regime change is a diversion. "Not only did the Bush Administration misunderstand the lessons of modern war, it made a policy blunder of historic proportions," he writes.

-- The Rumsfeld doctrine of making the U.S. military a smaller, more mobile, more high-tech force is responsible for the failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and for the postwar chaos in Iraq. Clark, a four-star U.S. Army general, places the current debate over transforming the military within a broader fight between the Air Force and Army that goes back to World War II. This is one of the more intriguing aspects of his book. Clark says that the Air Force has been trying for decades to prove that it can win wars alone, without the Army, through decisive and devastating air power. Rumsfeld, of course, is an ex-Navy pilot and a believer in air power. Clark concedes that air power won out in Serbia and Kosovo. But while he backs high-tech warfare, Clark also sees boots on the ground as essential. Special Ops units working with the Air Force couldn't destroy al Qaeda, but a division of Army soldiers might have. "It was a strategic opportunity lost."

-- Iraq may destroy the all-volunteer Army. Clark spends dozens of pages exalting the bravery and abilities of the men and women of the armed forces in his book. But he warns that the U.S. Army is not an army of occupation. The "quasi-imperial" America envisioned by the neocons in the Bush Administration is not matched by the military force that is supposed to create it. Nor should it be, according to Clark. He argues that the U.S. military is built for war-fighting, not long-term policing. It is a relatively small force (just 500,000 active Army troops), composed of volunteers, many of whom are married, with family commitments. Rapid and frequent rotation back to families for the enlisted -- and to their jobs for the reservists -- is crucial to maintaining the volunteer force. With Iraq tying down so many troops, that's not happening.

-- American unilateralism is bad military policy and bad foreign policy. Clark sharply criticizes the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America paper that postulates a unilateral, preemptive foreign policy for the country. He argues that the U.S. leverages its military and political power around the world through multilateral institutions such as NATO and the U.N. and that abandoning them has cost it dearly in Iraq. In effect, he says that the U.S. doesn't do nation-building very well and should outsource it to the U.N. Clark also dislikes talk of an American Empire. "Old ideas of empire have to be replaced with a new strategic vision."

That vision, of course, is the exit strategy out of Iraq. Clark says the U.S. must return to its multilateral roots and get Europe to share the burden in Iraq. He concedes that NATO and the U.N. need reform but says this can occur only through constructive U.S. leadership. Above all, he says the military should be powerful enough to achieve its goals but be used only as a last resort and with allies, if possible. Sounds much like the Powell Doctrine.

Winning Modern Wars succeeds on many levels, including the Stephen E. Ambrose-like description of battles and tactics used by General Tommy Franks in pacing the war. Clark clearly admires the courage and capabilities of the soldiers on the ground. But he also presents a cogent critique of Pentagon leadership and White House politics. As a military man, his insights go beyond the predictable Republican-Democratic partisan dialogue. It's a valuable perspective no matter which candidate you vote for.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_39/b3851061.htm

Ironduke
23 Sep 03,, 05:19
After Clark announced his candidacy, he shot up to the top of the Democratic candidates.

They did a Gallup poll, 49% said they would vote for Clark, 46% for Bush.

Officer of Engineers
23 Sep 03,, 06:07
So, I see Gen Clark has become a politician after all and learn to lie through his teeth.


-- The war in Iraq "has thus far been a perfect example of dominating an enemy force but failing to win the victory." Clark says the Administration made the classic mistake of equating the defeat of an enemy with achieving its larger political goal. That goal was to set up a democratic, stable, secular Iraq which would help stop terrorism. Clark argues that this required higher force levels and a different strategy: "Victory means not the defeat of the opposing army but rather winning the follow-through operation to accomplish the aims and intent of the plan." Too few troops on the ground going in left Saddam's Sunni heartland unconquered and rearguard supply troops vulnerable to attack. Moving unilaterally meant there were no European or other foreign troops to help in combat or policing the peace. And inadequate postwar planning meant few Arabic-speakers on hand, hardly any power generators, and no portable communications equipment. The Pentagon's war strategy, in effect, had "a profound flaw -- the endgame."

And what of the war of his own doing? Kosovo. Are we leaving anytime soon, having defended Al Qeida's best friends?


-- The war in Iraq has weakened, not strengthened, the fight against terrorism "by diverting attention, resources and leadership, alienating allied supporters and serving as a rallying point for anyone wishing to do harm to the U.S. and Americans." Clark, who was publicly against the war from the start, argues that the Bush Administration failed to make the case that Iraq was an imminent danger. More important, the Administration was caught up in the Cold War policy template of fighting states, not supranational terrorists such as al Qaeda, and was predisposed to attack Iraq well before September. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others believed that state-sponsored terrorism was the problem and that regime change could end the terrorist threat to the U.S.

For God sakes, the war has been going on for over 10 years. Iraqi gunners had been shooting at American planes. How much more immeniant danger do you want?

Weakened the fight against terrorism? An age old tenet. If you can't find the enemy, let the enemy find you. Al Qeida and their every ally is converging on Iraq. They're going to fight American soldiers over there instead of attacking civilians over here. It's a fight I relished.


-- The Rumsfeld doctrine of making the U.S. military a smaller, more mobile, more high-tech force is responsible for the failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and for the postwar chaos in Iraq. Clark, a four-star U.S. Army general, places the current debate over transforming the military within a broader fight between the Air Force and Army that goes back to World War II. This is one of the more intriguing aspects of his book. Clark says that the Air Force has been trying for decades to prove that it can win wars alone, without the Army, through decisive and devastating air power. Rumsfeld, of course, is an ex-Navy pilot and a believer in air power. Clark concedes that air power won out in Serbia and Kosovo. But while he backs high-tech warfare, Clark also sees boots on the ground as essential. Special Ops units working with the Air Force couldn't destroy al Qaeda, but a division of Army soldiers might have. "It was a strategic opportunity lost."

Now, those are lies and lies. The 3rd Yugoslav Army sufferred 12 pieces lost. The entire corps evaced the province in less than a week. What does this mean? It means that Clark's much vaunted air power did didly squat against the 3JA. Furthermore, the 3JA's LOC were never cut according to doctrine. Lastly, it was the British and the French prep work for a ground war that finally scared Milosevic into surrendering. The 3JA nearly revolted when they've gotten their orders. They were still combat effective at NINETY-FOUR percent strength.

On the eve of Milosevic surrender, the SAS/SBS/JTF II were poised to enter Kosovo to finally direct air strikes. On top of that, the British 4th Armoured Brigade was receiving a fourth battalion (3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment) of light inf as the airborne assualt package.

All this was planned and executed by British Gen Sir Michael Jackson. No input nor authorization was sought from Clark.


-- Iraq may destroy the all-volunteer Army. Clark spends dozens of pages exalting the bravery and abilities of the men and women of the armed forces in his book. But he warns that the U.S. Army is not an army of occupation. The "quasi-imperial" America envisioned by the neocons in the Bush Administration is not matched by the military force that is supposed to create it. Nor should it be, according to Clark. He argues that the U.S. military is built for war-fighting, not long-term policing. It is a relatively small force (just 500,000 active Army troops), composed of volunteers, many of whom are married, with family commitments. Rapid and frequent rotation back to families for the enlisted -- and to their jobs for the reservists -- is crucial to maintaining the volunteer force. With Iraq tying down so many troops, that's not happening.

So, he could parrot what everything from what Gen Shinseki has been saying on day 1.


-- American unilateralism is bad military policy and bad foreign policy. Clark sharply criticizes the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America paper that postulates a unilateral, preemptive foreign policy for the country. He argues that the U.S. leverages its military and political power around the world through multilateral institutions such as NATO and the U.N. and that abandoning them has cost it dearly in Iraq. In effect, he says that the U.S. doesn't do nation-building very well and should outsource it to the U.N. Clark also dislikes talk of an American Empire. "Old ideas of empire have to be replaced with a new strategic vision."

Gee, what kind of UN permission did we get for OAF? Is the UN in charge of Kosovo now? Now, who set that up?


That vision, of course, is the exit strategy out of Iraq. Clark says the U.S. must return to its multilateral roots and get Europe to share the burden in Iraq. He concedes that NATO and the U.N. need reform but says this can occur only through constructive U.S. leadership. Above all, he says the military should be powerful enough to achieve its goals but be used only as a last resort and with allies, if possible. Sounds much like the Powell Doctrine.

Squaks like a parrot. Shits like a parrot. The man was not trusted by allies and politicians alike. His command was not even in the go-no-go loop in that Chinese Embassy bombing. I've already stated what Gen Sir Jackson did to him.


Winning Modern Wars succeeds on many levels, including the Stephen E. Ambrose-like description of battles and tactics used by General Tommy Franks in pacing the war. Clark clearly admires the courage and capabilities of the soldiers on the ground. But he also presents a cogent critique of Pentagon leadership and White House politics. As a military man, his insights go beyond the predictable Republican-Democratic partisan dialogue. It's a valuable perspective no matter which candidate you vote for.

Unfortunately, the American public would not be exposed to this man's true lack of abilities.

I'm sorry. I have no respect for a man who was told to do a job half assed and who chomped down on people when they went to do the job full blast and then blame his bosses for failing to do the job properly and then bullshitting his successes on a job undone.

Officer of Engineers
23 Sep 03,, 06:19
I know of two reports that came out of that war. One was from the Canadian Air Command that stated that the Canadians only met with 10% success rate - on par with the rest of strike packages.

The other report came from Gen Clark's command in which they stated that OAF sortie success was 78%.

The difference.

The Canadians counted targets hit.

Gen Clark's office counted weapons release.

Bill
23 Sep 03,, 07:39
It's a shame this guy is just another shrill.

I really wish there was someone worth voting for.

I wish i could save my vote, and vote twice in the next election.... :(

Gio
23 Sep 03,, 09:40
That's just half of it, have you heard his economic and gun policies?

He calls for a "progressive income tax" sounds like Marx to me.

And he's pro-gun control.


This guy's all image, he makes Dean look good.

Gio
23 Sep 03,, 09:41
Originally posted by ironman420
After Clark announced his candidacy, he shot up to the top of the Democratic candidates.

They did a Gallup poll, 49% said they would vote for Clark, 46% for Bush.

Hmmm, Strange, the new CNN/Time poll just came out recently showing that not even Clark beat Bush.

Ziska
23 Sep 03,, 10:33
Originally posted by Gio
He calls for a "progressive income tax" sounds like Marx to me.

You do know what a progressive income tax is, yeah? Nothing at all to do with Marx and a whole lot more to do with avoiding economic collapse.

Anyway, you already have a progressive income tax, just like every other first-world country.

Gio
23 Sep 03,, 10:44
Please refer to the following passage from the Communist Manifesto...
Communist Manifesto, 1848 wrote:
"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

bigross86
23 Sep 03,, 10:47
What is a progressive income tax?

Ziska
23 Sep 03,, 11:04
There is a difference between the heavy progressive tax describedd by Marx and what you have in most first-world countries.

A progressive tax is basically, the more you earn, the higher percentage of tax you pay. Ie, you earn $40,000 and pay 25% tax, 65,000 38% tax, $120,000 55% tax.

A flat tax is where everyone pays the same percentage, no matter how much they earn.

I used to support a flat tax (or at least a very low progressive tax grade), but looking at its effects, I changed my mind.

See, there are certain things in life that people need. In Australian society this is housing, transport, food, education, employment. Once someone is earning enough to get these, any money that they earn, they don't really need. It would be better spent providing suppport for pensioners or disabled people than buying some guy a new boat.

I am an advocate of user pays, but if someone is working a full day, yet not earning enough to provide for his family, he will need help. And he should get it. If someone is sitting around on his ass, he can starve. If he isn't capable of working (in the case of old or disabled people), society should take care of them, and those that are more able to contribute should.

Stinger
23 Sep 03,, 13:44
Originally posted by Ziska
A progressive tax is basically, the more you earn, the higher percentage of tax you pay. Ie, you earn $40,000 and pay 25% tax, 65,000 38% tax, $120,000 55% tax.

A flat tax is where everyone pays the same percentage, no matter how much they earn.

I used to support a flat tax (or at least a very low progressive tax grade), but looking at its effects, I changed my mind.

See, there are certain things in life that people need. In Australian society this is housing, transport, food, education, employment. Once someone is earning enough to get these, any money that they earn, they don't really need. It would be better spent providing suppport for pensioners or disabled people than buying some guy a new boat.


Hosreshit you earn it its yours, if you want to take 500 dollars out to the nearest homeless man and burn it right in front of him well hey its YOUR money YOU earned it.... Old people are the only people whom I think have a right from the government for compensation in their retirement. Everyone else can blow me, I'm sick to death of hearing about some poor woman with 19,000 kids so she can collect a bigger GD welfare check, Unemployement pay wouldn't be on my shit list either if it wasn't f*cked up as hogans goat.

Gio
23 Sep 03,, 16:18
:)

Bill
23 Sep 03,, 18:10
"See, there are certain things in life that people need. In Australian society this is housing, transport, food, education, employment. Once someone is earning enough to get these, any money that they earn, they don't really need. It would be better spent providing suppport for pensioners or disabled people than buying some guy a new boat."

Good christ all mighty....that makes you a communist. :(

bigross86
23 Sep 03,, 18:21
Repent!!! You must repent!!!

2DREZQ
23 Sep 03,, 21:56
I am afraid of what the long-term commitment in Iraq is going to do to the re-enlistment rate.

Oh, and democracy will never work over there, install a dictator we can live with, and get out.

Praxus
23 Sep 03,, 22:23
I say we leave now, keep a few bases and say if you threaten our oil supply or our interest again you will be destroyed.

Bill
23 Sep 03,, 23:24
I say we leave them to their mess, and if they act up again, we carpet bomb Baghdad with B-52's.

Of course, i have recently found that this is not a particularly popular option...

It would however, ensure future compliance with US demands.

Praxus
24 Sep 03,, 00:36
I say everytime there is a terrorist attack, we destroy a major city. First to go is Mecca. They will get pissed off but hey, so what?

Bill
24 Sep 03,, 01:27
LOL, now you sound like Horrido.

Gio
24 Sep 03,, 01:51
Originally posted by M21Sniper
LOL, now you sound like Horrido.

LOL, I was thinking the same thing.

Ziska
24 Sep 03,, 08:16
Originally posted by M21Sniper
Good christ all mighty....that makes you a communist. :(

...and to think, people actually call me a right-wing neo-nazi in Australia. :)

What's to earn? Who says that working for 9 hours a day in a shearing shed is worth less than working for 9 hours in an office? It takes the same amount of training and certainly more effort. The market demands both services pretty equally in Australia.

The money you 'earn' is yours, and I certainly don't advocate giving money to unworthy people (ie, those who refuse to work).

But a flat tax really hurts the lower-to-middle classes. It means that the people who earn just enough to scrape by now would have to pay more tax, whilst people who already live comfortably pay less.

On a different note, rising taxes for the majority of people is a bad idea, as they will have to spend less. More people spending less = badness for the economy, which ultimately = badness for the upper classes.

mididoctors
26 Nov 04,, 11:30
I say we leave them to their mess, and if they act up again, we carpet bomb Baghdad with B-52's.

Of course, i have recently found that this is not a particularly popular option...

It would however, ensure future compliance with US demands.

this seems to indicate that your current definition of victory is not consistent with your old one which was perhaps more Iimperial in nature and this is over a period of about one yr.

Here your argument has no moral component as you are willing to carpet bomb baghdad solely for US interests which can not be one of saving lives from a tyrannt as this woulkd surley kill a lot of people.

however you were probably 'half joking" still this is not consistent with your current position.

Boris
London

Bill
26 Nov 04,, 12:52
Wesley Clark is a jackasss, not sure if i mentioned that earlier.


Oh, and midi, about evolving positions...

"Only the dead and fools sre incapable of changing their mind."

Heracles.

mididoctors
26 Nov 04,, 12:56
Wesley Clark is a jackasss.

that was not my point was it?

you indicated a year ago you didn't care what hapened to the iraqis now you claim this was the reason for the whole thing..

edit: the idea that you can evolve retrospectively the reason why you did something seems somewhat at odds compared with the common sense evolving argument over your assessment of what to do or what happened or what the situation is.

that is an ENTIRELY different thing for claiming what intentions were back in the day... thats a fixed item. at best you can claim you were confused about the aims of the war as admission you have changed your mind (your argument) indicates you never really knew what it was about to start with.

the position you adopt in your defense is not tenable IMO.

Boris
london

Bill
26 Nov 04,, 13:01
"that was not my point was it?

you indicated a year ago you didn't care what hapened to the iraqis now you claim this was the reason for the whole thing"

No, i was only making an observation:

Wesley Clark is a jackass

It had nothing to do with you. You're not that important to me dude.

mididoctors
26 Nov 04,, 13:06
"that was not my point was it?

you indicated a year ago you didn't care what hapened to the iraqis now you claim this was the reason for the whole thing"

No, i was only making an observation:

Wesley Clark is a jackass

It had nothing to do with you. You're not that important to me dude.

see above..

my importance to you is irrelevant either my argument is right or it is wrong... where it comes from doesn't matter in as far as this discussion goes.

OTOH maybe other peoples opinion or inability to see/understand your position as consistent DOES matter.

Boris
London

Bill
26 Nov 04,, 13:12
"Only the dead and fools are incapable of changing their mind."

Heracles.

mididoctors
26 Nov 04,, 13:28
"Only the dead and fools are incapable of changing their mind."

Heracles.


so the argument is that you have changed your mind about the war aims...

how many times?

did we go to war for a different reason than the one we are fighting now?

I find you inability to address this in detail interesting

My take is I actually think thats true!

we are not fighting for the reasons we thought we were, which is both disturbing and illuminating.

the problem i have with your position is that it is (conceded) fluid over time yet adopts at each moment the stance of being some solid unmoving truth at the time it is presented.

is that some physiological necessity? is maintaining some solid belief a prerequisite to war even if we must change what it is we believe in from moment to moment?

ie is not what we think is true just we MUST think something is true. else we lose the ability to act and we will be defeated by self doubt?

is the ability to change the reasons why we did something really changing our mind in the spirit of your quote or in fact a method of avoiding the horrible conclusion a real change of mind entails.. ie we were wrong about the reasons for this war?

which of those two is foolish or warrants the title change of mind?

all that said and done it hardly removes the task of resolving the situation..

even if we conclude we are ****ing the world into a cocked hat and were completely out of our minds starting this thing we still left needing to "win it" now.

perhaps being more critical of our motives and mentality would help us win?

Boris
London

lemontree
26 Nov 04,, 13:37
Oh, and democracy will never work over there, install a dictator we can live with, and get out.

It will save all the stupid trouble of holding elections, and bothering about success. Just put an ugly looking guy on the chair, and declare that he is a 'bad ass'. There should be a marked improvement in the behaviour of the insurgents, 'coz they are use to bad ass dictators.

BTW, that Gen. Clarke, sounds like a real politician. He speaks from hindsight, and is bad at his job (understand from what is posted), so he makes and ideal politician :biggrin:

Bill
26 Nov 04,, 20:30
"so the argument is that you have changed your mind about the war aims..."

Read American Soldier, and i bet you do too.

The first thing you'll realize- as i did- is that you were ignorant to a lot of what was done and why. The second thing you'll realize is that you've been blaming the wrong people for those things to begin with- just as i was.

Beyond that, yeah, my position has been known to evolve over time on a great many issues.

Ray
26 Nov 04,, 20:58
Sniper,

If Clark was a jackass, it means jackasses attain such high ranks in the US Army.

Would you agree?

I don't.

His personal views and his prfessional acumen can be diferent, can' it?

Bill
26 Nov 04,, 21:25
The man almost started WWIII in a little stinkhole called Kosovo.

I'd say he was a jackass.

Her was also despised by his men, one of whom was the good Colonel.

mididoctors
26 Nov 04,, 22:34
"so the argument is that you have changed your mind about the war aims..."

Read American Soldier, and i bet you do too.

The first thing you'll realize- as i did- is that you were ignorant to a lot of what was done and why. The second thing you'll realize is that you've been blaming the wrong people for those things to begin with- just as i was.

Beyond that, yeah, my position has been known to evolve over time on a great many issues.

that raises some interesting issues

what are these reasons both then and now?

is it impossible to understand these reasons without reading American soldier?

Does it take you to explain this to me as opposed to the government which tried to explain it to me?

Why did they keep me ignorant? did they know they were doing this or was my ignorance of what was going my fault?


was everybody ignorant of what and why or just you and me?

Boris
London

Bill
27 Nov 04,, 07:58
Why should i try to condense into three paragraphs that which you can learn in far greater detail by reading a single book?

Lemme ask you this, did you know there was a deception plan that kept 11 Iraqi Divisions pinned in the North of Iraq?

Did you know that a US Army double agent was passing disinformation directly to the Mukhabbarat?

Did you know that the original plan for OIF called for 400,000 troops, and that Franks ordered it trashed and rewritten???

Nope, nope, nope.

If you want to act like you are well informed on the subject, you should go plunk down the $14 dollars to buy the book.......so that you are well informed.

That is doubly true for Ray and quadrupally true for Lull.

lemontree
27 Nov 04,, 08:49
$14 dollars to buy the book.......so that you are well informed.


Thats almost Indian Rupees 644/-. I'll wait for a pirated version of it. :tongue: :biggrin:

Ray
27 Nov 04,, 14:41
Sniper,

You must gift it to the UN.

pinetreescanada
27 Nov 04,, 23:42
Sniper, you suggest carpet bombing Baghdad, why not nuke? The point is if US did that it'll be nothing short than Nagasaki. This time for just a really bad reason. The Iraqis aren't all terrorists. You're killing civilian, and some of them that supports the US. I guess anyone that kills civilian as a objective would be considered terrorists.

Praxus, same thing. You kill civilians I don't see anything that separates you from terrorists.

pinetreescanada
27 Nov 04,, 23:43
And domination over the weaker ones makes you a dictator. Seriously if the Iraqis don't want you then launch some major operation and after that pull out so you wouldn't look so bad.

Confed999
27 Nov 04,, 23:51
if the Iraqis don't want you
I'm sure the Iraqis don't want to fight a civil war alone in their current military state, or an invasion by Iran and/or others, either. They allready know there are very few in the world that will come to their aid...

pinetreescanada
28 Nov 04,, 04:48
I'm sure the Iraqis don't want to fight a civil war alone in their current military state, or an invasion by Iran and/or others, either. They allready know there are very few in the world that will come to their aid...

True. But I'm supposing US is doing more good than bad?

Confed999
28 Nov 04,, 05:18
True. But I'm supposing US is doing more good than bad?
Certainly, I'm sure the Coalition forces are doing their best.