US Needs Help In Iraq

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-08-27 04:34pm

An Editiorial Column by Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)

August 27, 2003
Robert C. Byrd

U.S. should ask for help in Iraq before it's too late

As the situation in Iraq continues to spiral out of control, an anxious nation watches. Despite assurances to the American people that our troops would be welcomed with open arms as liberators, U.S. soldiers are increasingly being met with guns and car bombs. The bombing at the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad has clearly exposed our vacant policy in Iraq. The American people are told to be patient. Winning the peace will take time. Meanwhile, the frustration of the Iraqi people grows by the day, as does their anger. The inability of the United States to even restore basic amenities further fuels the fire.

Before the war began, I urged the president to think through the consequences. There was no doubt as to the military outcome of war between the United States and Iraq; our might was unquestioned. But, I was very concerned about the repercussions that would follow an almost certain military victory, especially if we were unable to convince key allies to join our effort.

Today, I urge President Bush to review his options. It is time to ask the world community not only for assistance in restoring peace and security in Iraq but also for participation in moving Iraq toward self-government. While the secretary of state has opened a dialogue with the United Nations, it must be a true exchange and not a U.S. monologue.

What has become tragically clear is that the United States has no strong plan for turning Iraq over to the Iraqi people and is quickly losing even its ability to maintain order. The administration is stumbling through the dark, hoping by luck to find the lighted path to peace and stability.

Despite the best hopes for an Iraqi democracy, the Iraqi people and the world see only the worst fears of occupation. Instead of inspiring steps toward self-government, we witness hit-and-run murders of American soldiers, terrorist attacks and sabotage. Our military action in Iraq has forged a cauldron of contempt for America, a dangerous brew that may poison the efforts of peace throughout the Middle East and result in the rapid invigoration of worldwide terrorism.

The president’s stubborn insistence that much of the world be shut out of real participation in the rebuilding effort in Iraq is obviously costing lives. In addition, it is costing the United States a loss of credibility in Iraq and around the globe. We promised to improve the quality of life; yet, so far, we have failed to deliver. As a result, increasing numbers of Iraqis see the United States only as occupier, not liberator.

Instead of giving the young people of Iraq a reason to turn away from the violence of terrorism, we have, through failures and unkept promises, fed the seeds of discontent. The inability of the United States to secure the peace in Iraq virtually guarantees al-Qaida a fertile field of new recruits eager to sacrifice their lives to fight anything American.

War has proved, by comparison, far easier than peace. We had the weapons to win the war, but not the wisdom to secure the peace. The coalition of those who might be willing to share the burden of building a new Iraq will be harder to muster now. But, the challenge is too great for the United States alone. The rapidly rising anti-American sentiment demands that an international effort be initiated before Iraq slips from decades of dictatorship to decades of chaos.

The administration’s reconstruction effort is costing the American people $1 billion a week. It is costing the lives of American soldiers and of civilians from many nations. Only an entirely closed mind could fail to grasp the need for a change in course. Close cooperation with the international community might yet yield a plan for peace and security for the people of Iraq. Haughty statements and unilateral actions will not advance our cause. They must be put aside. We must work with the international community to forge what we cannot achieve alone: a lasting peace for Iraq and, in fact, for the Middle East region as a whole.

A hallmark of true leadership is the ability to admit when one is wrong and to learn from errors. Candidate George W. Bush spoke about the need for humility from a great and powerful nation. He said, “Let us reject the blinders of isolationism, just as we refuse the crown of empire. Let us not dominate others with our power — or betray them with our indifference. And let us have an American foreign policy that reflects American character. The modesty of true strength. The humility of real greatness.” It is time for the Bush administration to swallow its false pride and return to that philosophy of humility before it is too late.

This commentary by Sen. Byrd, D-W.Va., was published in Tuesday’s Washington Post.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-08-27 04:40pm

Sorry to say this but Shrubby created this mess when he alienated every other country in the world with his “With us or against us” BS.

Only option as I see it is to give control over Iraq to the UN and let the UN create a stable situation in IRAQ.

There is no way that the rest of the world is going to pitch in as things stands right now.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-27 04:41pm

As the situation in Iraq continues to spiral out of control, an anxious nation watches. Despite assurances to the American people that our troops would be welcomed with open arms as liberators, U.S. soldiers are increasingly being met with guns and car bombs. The bombing at the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad has clearly exposed our vacant policy in Iraq.

Actually, that exposes the vacant policy on the U.N. in Iraq.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-27 04:42pm

"on" should be "of."

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-27 04:46pm

Only option as I see it is to give control over Iraq to the UN and let the UN create a stable situation in IRAQ.

Please. The UN wouldn't even accept adequate security for their headquarters in Iraq (allowing the Islamofascists to kill a truly great man in the process). You think they're going to be able to bring stability and order to Iraq?

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-08-27 04:55pm

Durran Korr wrote:Please. The UN wouldn't even accept adequate security for their headquarters in Iraq (allowing the Islamofascists to kill a truly great man in the process). You think they're going to be able to bring stability and order to Iraq?

Shrug don't know but I know this.

Whatever the US is doing right now is not working, perhaps it is time to try something diffrent?

Did the UN reject offers of increased security? If so then that is news to me. Do you have a link?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-08-27 05:16pm

Faram wrote: Did the UN reject offers of increased security? If so then that is news to me. Do you have a link?

It did. The reasoning was that they wanted to appear as benefectors and aproachable to the iraqi society, not as a ruthless occupying power. On paper, I'm certain it looked like a good idea, bold but with chances of working. A posteriori, it was really stupid.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-08-27 05:20pm

The USA are trying to get a new UN resolution, allowing other countries to send troops to Iraq, and help the USA. But they still want to retain the power in Iraq, yet those countries they want military help from want the UN to get a much bigger say. So it's like a stalemate.

And I think the USA should do it all on their own. They did attack alone, they should bear the brunt of it alone.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-08-27 05:33pm

Senator Byrd is fearmongering with the article. Imho The U.S.A. made the bed and should sleep in it. That how it is said, right?

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-08-27 09:48pm

Rubberanvil wrote:Senator Byrd is fearmongering with the article. Imho The U.S.A. made the bed and should sleep in it. That how it is said, right?

Yes, the phrase is right, Anvil. Bush and Co. have made a very uncomfortable bed for themselves, and Sen. Byrd is pointing fingers and saying "I Told You So."

Of course, Byrd is the oldest Senator still serving, iirc, which means that he has seen what happened when the US tried to move into Korea and Vietnam. Byrd was also the only Senator to publically oppose the Iraq invasion, and I wish I could find some of the rhetoric he used in that speech.

Personally, I think that several people in Washington would do well to listen to the Old Byrd. His years in the US Senate have given him a shrewd wisdom and insight into politics both home and abroad.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-08-27 09:56pm

LadyTevar wrote:
Rubberanvil wrote:Senator Byrd is fearmongering with the article. Imho The U.S.A. made the bed and should sleep in it. That how it is said, right?
Yes, the phrase is right, Anvil. Bush and Co. have made a very uncomfortable bed for themselves, and Sen. Byrd is pointing fingers and saying "I Told You So."

Of course, Byrd is the oldest Senator still serving, iirc, which means that he has seen what happened when the US tried to move into Korea and Vietnam. Byrd was also the only Senator to publically oppose the Iraq invasion, and I wish I could find some of the rhetoric he used in that speech.

Personally, I think that several people in Washington would do well to listen to the Old Byrd. His years in the US Senate have given him a shrewd wisdom and insight into politics both home and abroad.

You want to listen to Byrd? Sen. Byrd, imo, has lost his marbles. We currently passed 140 KIA in Iraq, now go back and check that against the KIA in Vietnaum or Korea. While I lament the death of the 140, it is in no way indicitive of some sort of massive failure in Iraq.

I would be for a watered down UN resolution if only to let some countries who really want to help, help. India would send, IIRC 15000 troops to Iraq but politicaly needs UN mandate. Fuck France and the like, but lets get some sort of UN resolution passed to untie the hands of those who legitimately want to help.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-08-27 10:07pm

Knife wrote: You want to listen to Byrd? Sen. Byrd, imo, has lost his marbles. We currently passed 140 KIA in Iraq, now go back and check that against the KIA in Vietnaum or Korea. While I lament the death of the 140, it is in no way indicitive of some sort of massive failure in Iraq.

I would be for a watered down UN resolution if only to let some countries who really want to help, help. India would send, IIRC 15000 troops to Iraq but politicaly needs UN mandate. Fuck France and the like, but lets get some sort of UN resolution passed to untie the hands of those who legitimately want to help.

Read the article again. Sen. Byrd is telling Bush that he needs to back down and ALLOW that kind of support, instead of continuing to (mis)handle the problem alone.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-27 10:11pm

Dahak wrote: And I think the USA should do it all on their own. They did attack alone, they should bear the brunt of it alone.

Except for the British, Danish, Australian, Polish and several other nations forces in the country people like to ignore.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-27 10:13pm

It's amusing to watch the extremists on both sides. On the one side there are the 'FUCK no, America does this alone, the casualities are fine for now!' and on the other are 'FUCK no, Americans made the problem, they can deal with it!'.

No one thinks about those trapped in the middle, the Iraqis, who are suffering more because America is not admitting it's mistake and letting others help more. But why think of them? After all, apparently America and it's pride are more important.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-08-27 10:15pm

LadyTevar wrote:
Knife wrote: You want to listen to Byrd? Sen. Byrd, imo, has lost his marbles. We currently passed 140 KIA in Iraq, now go back and check that against the KIA in Vietnaum or Korea. While I lament the death of the 140, it is in no way indicitive of some sort of massive failure in Iraq.

I would be for a watered down UN resolution if only to let some countries who really want to help, help. India would send, IIRC 15000 troops to Iraq but politicaly needs UN mandate. Fuck France and the like, but lets get some sort of UN resolution passed to untie the hands of those who legitimately want to help.
Read the article again. Sen. Byrd is telling Bush that he needs to back down and ALLOW that kind of support, instead of continuing to (mis)handle the problem alone.

He's saying that Bush should admit that he's wrong and let mommy (UN) take over and save us from our folly. IMHO, Bush was right but it wouldn't hurt to give a little and let our friends help. Byrds price is too high.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-08-27 10:18pm

I think the US ought to do what's right for the Iraqis. Not what makes us look best. We were supposed to liberate them, not occupy them.

While casualties are not alarming or even indicative of a terrible calamity in the offing they are troubling. There is clearly more resistance than Bush expected, though the administration should have.

If bringing order, security and peace back to Iraq means making a reasonable deal with the UN then by all means we should.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-27 10:25pm

Knife wrote:
LadyTevar wrote:
Knife wrote: You want to listen to Byrd? Sen. Byrd, imo, has lost his marbles. We currently passed 140 KIA in Iraq, now go back and check that against the KIA in Vietnaum or Korea. While I lament the death of the 140, it is in no way indicitive of some sort of massive failure in Iraq.

I would be for a watered down UN resolution if only to let some countries who really want to help, help. India would send, IIRC 15000 troops to Iraq but politicaly needs UN mandate. Fuck France and the like, but lets get some sort of UN resolution passed to untie the hands of those who legitimately want to help.
Read the article again. Sen. Byrd is telling Bush that he needs to back down and ALLOW that kind of support, instead of continuing to (mis)handle the problem alone.
He's saying that Bush should admit that he's wrong and let mommy (UN) take over and save us from our folly. IMHO, Bush was right but it wouldn't hurt to give a little and let our friends help. Byrds price is too high.

Price? What, you mean admitting American fucked up and it needs help? I'll let you in on a secret: The world is already shaking it's head at America's losses. Admitting you need help is going to merely shift you from arrogant incompetents to incompetents on this.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-08-27 10:30pm

I'll let you in on a secret: The world is already shaking it's head at America's losses.

One of the commanders in the third armor called Iraq and weapons depot with a government. And now the governments gone. Of course we're going to take losses. No matter how competent our troops are there'll be casualties.

I'm not familiar enough with the actual circumstances of the ambushes to say it's incompetence or not. But there's no doubt more troops will help.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-27 10:31pm

Hey, a little help is fine. Just as long as it doesn't involve the UN.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-08-27 10:35pm

And I think the USA should do it all on their own. They did attack alone, they should bear the brunt of it alone.

Perhaps we ought to pull the peace keeper out of the former Yugoslovia and let you guys deal with that mess. Then we can secure Iraq and ignore the UN. After all, no one likes that operation.

Or everyone can act civilly and something can be worked out. Simply saying "screw you guys" isn't going to accomplish anything in the long run. Both sides out to sacrifice their pride some and do what right for the Iraqis.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-08-27 10:37pm

Durran Korr wrote:Hey, a little help is fine. Just as long as it doesn't involve the UN.

Why the opposition to the UN? Provided something fair can be worked out why not? Isn't this supposed to be about helping the Iraqis not occupying them?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-27 10:42pm

Stormbringer wrote:
And I think the USA should do it all on their own. They did attack alone, they should bear the brunt of it alone.
Perhaps we ought to pull the peace keeper out of the former Yugoslovia and let you guys deal with that mess. Then we can secure Iraq and ignore the UN. After all, no one likes that operation.

Or everyone can act civilly and something can be worked out. Simply saying "screw you guys" isn't going to accomplish anything in the long run. Both sides out to sacrifice their pride some and do what right for the Iraqis.

The UN won't even protect its headquarters from attack, why the hell should they be expected to be ready to deal with the daily firefighting and terrorist attacks that coalition forces have to deal with? It's clear that the terrorists aren't going to be making any distinctions between civilian UN employees and actual combatants.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-08-27 10:45pm

Durran Korr wrote:The UN won't even protect its headquarters from attack, why the hell should they be expected to be ready to deal with the daily firefighting and terrorist attacks that coalition forces have to deal with? It's clear that the terrorists aren't going to be making any distinctions between civilian UN employees and actual combatants.

And I fully agree with making sure the UN pulls it's weight if other want in. But blanket refusal of the UN is foolish and only makes the US look bad.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-27 10:56pm

Jesus Christ, what is this obsession with the UN? The US is not just telling the international community to go fuck themselves, we've been gathering support from other nations for months (like Skimmer pointed out) and we're still doing so. But oh no, that doesn't matter, how dare the U.S. be less than willing to cooperate with the Holy UN! Nevermind the fact that half of the countries on the Security Council (and also Syria, a country from which terrorists are entering Iraq with the intent to kill Americans on a daily basis) fought against this war, tooth and nail, and certainly are not wishing for us to be successful in Iraq. That doesn't matter, it's just more unilateralist cowboy jingoism!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-27 11:50pm

This bit about "gathering support from other nations" is a very nicely worded way of describing their position of "we'll do whatever we want, and if you don't agree with us then fuck you". Their attitude toward the international community was PRECISELY the same as their attitude toward the UN.