http://www.americansecurityproject.org/theflashpointblog/jim-ludes/2008/04/03/the-critical-question-for-general-petraeus/ Sparking Debate on Important National Security Issues Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:55:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://www.americansecurityproject.org/theflashpointblog/jim-ludes/2008/04/03/the-critical-question-for-general-petraeus/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Jim Ludes Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:58:32 +0000 http://www.americansecurityproject.org/theflashpointblog/jim-ludes/2008/04/03/the-critical-question-for-general-petraeus/#comment-5 Great minds, Nostradamus, please see today's post. Great minds, Nostradamus, please see today’s post.

]]> http://www.americansecurityproject.org/theflashpointblog/jim-ludes/2008/04/03/the-critical-question-for-general-petraeus/comment-page-1/#comment-4 Nostradamus since the year 2000 Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:04:49 +0000 http://www.americansecurityproject.org/theflashpointblog/jim-ludes/2008/04/03/the-critical-question-for-general-petraeus/#comment-4 I agree, Jim, that "Is America safer?" is the critical question. I just disagree that General Petraeus is the person to direct that question to. He's a General charged with restoring stability to Iraq, primarily by using American forces to provide security and counters to insurgent and terrorist activity while Iraq's government and the foreign contractors strengthen the physical and political infrastructure, services, and their economy. Whether this mission results in a safer America is what the politicians, their advisors, and the commander-in-chief - all who had a role in getting into this quagmire - need to answer. So follow that thread and how it can be asked to the Gen. "Does a stable Iraq lead to a safer America?" breaks down into several other questions that have to be answered. Will America leaving Iraq lead be perceived as an abandonment by Iraqis and other powers in the Mideast. Will Iran become the new influencial power without America's precesence/support? Is it satisfactory to have lost so many Americans, Iraqis, and others, to have spent the countless billions, to result in an Iraq dependent and allied with Iran for support. Iraq, from the beginning preparation of our invasion to the present, has NEVER had anything to do with terrorism. Al Queda was not active in Iraq until America invaded. Our presence there was not to fight Al Queda. Jim, you certainly are more informed than I am. Iraq was supposed to make America safer from the threat of WMDs in Iraq, which was a lie. But yet the result is that we are just as safe from WMD's in Iraq as we were before(since there weren't any). So, Terrorism & Al Queda were then put to center stage as a reason to justify our invasion and presence. So let's ask a question to determine if America is safer - Is Iraq suppose to be about fighting terrorism? If it is, then I would agrue 'No, America is not safer' only because terrorism wasn't a viable threat in Iraq either (compared to Syria, Iran, etc.). I'm rambling - I could go on and on following the different threads and variables, but can you follow my critical, insane thoughts? I agree, Jim, that “Is America safer?” is the critical question. I just disagree that General Petraeus is the person to direct that question to. He’s a General charged with restoring stability to Iraq, primarily by using American forces to provide security and counters to insurgent and terrorist activity while Iraq’s government and the foreign contractors strengthen the physical and political infrastructure, services, and their economy. Whether this mission results in a safer America is what the politicians, their advisors, and the commander-in-chief – all who had a role in getting into this quagmire – need to answer. So follow that thread and how it can be asked to the Gen. “Does a stable Iraq lead to a safer America?” breaks down into several other questions that have to be answered. Will America leaving Iraq lead be perceived as an abandonment by Iraqis and other powers in the Mideast. Will Iran become the new influencial power without America’s precesence/support? Is it satisfactory to have lost so many Americans, Iraqis, and others, to have spent the countless billions, to result in an Iraq dependent and allied with Iran for support. Iraq, from the beginning preparation of our invasion to the present, has NEVER had anything to do with terrorism. Al Queda was not active in Iraq until America invaded. Our presence there was not to fight Al Queda. Jim, you certainly are more informed than I am. Iraq was supposed to make America safer from the threat of WMDs in Iraq, which was a lie. But yet the result is that we are just as safe from WMD’s in Iraq as we were before(since there weren’t any). So, Terrorism & Al Queda were then put to center stage as a reason to justify our invasion and presence. So let’s ask a question to determine if America is safer – Is Iraq suppose to be about fighting terrorism? If it is, then I would agrue ‘No, America is not safer’ only because terrorism wasn’t a viable threat in Iraq either (compared to Syria, Iran, etc.). I’m rambling – I could go on and on following the different threads and variables, but can you follow my critical, insane thoughts?

]]> http://www.americansecurityproject.org/theflashpointblog/jim-ludes/2008/04/03/the-critical-question-for-general-petraeus/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Frank Lowenstein Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:29:57 +0000 http://www.americansecurityproject.org/theflashpointblog/jim-ludes/2008/04/03/the-critical-question-for-general-petraeus/#comment-3 An excellent point. Many thanks Jim! An excellent point. Many thanks Jim!

]]>