Will more troops fix the problem in Iraq?

[kestra]

The US is prevailing militarily in Iraq, but not so much in winning over the Iraqi public.
Most Iraqis see the coalition as occupiers now, as opposed to liberators.

Most experts will say that you cannot introduce democracy into Iraq through invasion and occupation.
This process is being made even more difficult with Sunnis and Shiites attacking coalition forces and civilians.

Ari raised a good point with the cartoons he posted. Both sides of this war have plenty of blood on their hands.

But I think most will agree that until the suppression of the photos was lifted, America could claim that they had the moral highground.
They've lost a big chunk of that, regardless of the percentage of military personnel took part in the abuses.

[Pyrosama]

Originally posted by kestra
Most Iraqis see the coalition as occupiers now, as opposed to liberators.

Can you link a poll or some other form of substantiated proof of how you came up with this assumption? When you say MOST, without providing some sort of statistical factoid, it makes it sound like you took the extra effort and went over to Iraq and polled the entire Iraqi citizenry and confirmed that over 50% of respondents contributed to the formulation of your assumption.

=)

Originally posted by kestra

Most experts will say that you cannot introduce democracy into Iraq through invasion and occupation.

Again, who are these experts and how do you come up with MOST? What is their area of expertise and how many of how many were queried? When you say MOST, the assumption is that there has been some sort of effort made toward fact-finding and that that effort resulted in this discovery that you've made.

To give my answer to the question though, I think that we could use more support from the public than what we are getting, but in the long run I think that people will eventually realize that we are making progress and that the decisions that have been made and continue to work will continue to result in good things for Iraq.

There's nothing I hate more than to listen to people berate the current Administration and completely disregard all good that's come of this occupation. The invasion was a success, Saddam is captured, and we are doing what the liberal media has always scoffed at and continue to belittle and that is "making progress".

It doesn't happen over night, and though there have been setbacks, progress continues and THAT is why you know that the decisions made are the right decisions - progress speaks for itself. Bold statements with no substantiation is inexcuseable and does nothing to help with progress.

[kestra]

Bold statements with no substantiation is inexcuseable and does nothing to help with progress.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours!!

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by kestra
Most experts will say that you cannot introduce democracy into Iraq through invasion and occupation.

Originally posted by Pyrosama
Again, who are these experts and how do you come up with MOST?

Originally posted by kestra
I'll show you mine if you show me yours!!

The Phillipines, Germany, and Japan = Countries we conquered and occupied, and turned into democracies.

All three are doing well, and Germany and Japan are doing exceptionally well.

Those are just a few examples to indicate how full of crap anyone is who says you cannot spread democracy by conquering and occupying.

55 years later we are STILL in Germany and every time we try to leave they throw a fit and beg us to stay.

[kestra]

The US led coalition seemed to believe they could do it in a year.

Just another aspect Bush "misunderestimated".

[Lavith]

Umm, maybe I missed something, but I never heard or read anything that said we thought we could do it in a year. Most of what I remember was that we would be there for a few years at the least...

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Lavith
Umm, maybe I missed something, but I never heard or read anything that said we thought we could do it in a year. Most of what I remember was that we would be there for a few years at the least...

Your memory is much better than other folks.

Nobody ever said things would be done in a year. From the very beginning there were estimates all over the place that averaged around about 5 years. Personally, I think it will be longer than that. After 55 years we are still in Germany and they get furious if we even HINT that we might leave.

We are trying to do one of the most difficult things possible in the realm of geopolitics. The fact that some blowhards act like it is high school home economics where everything follows a predictable recipe is foolish and simple minded.

There is most likely going to be a provisional Iraqi government in place 15 months after the initial invasion. That's extremely impressive. Could things be better? Of course. Could they be worse? They sure could. For example, Saddam Hussein could still be in power.

Detractors should stop PRAYING for disaster and actually try being constructive and figure out ways they can help the process along.

People who HOPE for things to go wrong just so their petty political beliefs are vindicated are totally warped. Such thinking is grossly immoral.

If they don't like democracy and freedom then they should just say so. Otherwise, the only side to be on is hoping we succeed in Iraq.

[Pyrosama]

Originally posted by kestra
I'll show you mine if you show me yours!!

Okay. Here's mine.

Progress

Don't feel bad if mine is bigger than yours. =)

[Kharum]

Pyrosama:
Can you link a poll or some other form of substantiated proof of how you came up with this assumption?

I can. From a Gallup poll concluded on April 2, 2004:

Q. Do you think now of Coalition forces mostly as occupiers or mostly as liberators?

Occupiers - 71%
Liberators - 19%
Both - 8%

57% of Iraqis also believe that the US and British forces should leave immediately. This despite the fact that most Iraqis (61%) believe that ousting Saddam was worth it, and most also believe their lives are better in a number of ways since the invasion (with security being a notable exception).

It would almost certainly be a disaster for the coalition to pull out entirely at this point (though I'm hardly convinced that it won't be a disaster if they stay), but clearly they need to reconsider the whole "stay the course" thing, as the current course they are following is not winning over the Iraqi people despite what even the Iraqis consider to be obvious improvements to their lives.

Okay. Here's mine.

Progress

Don't feel bad if mine is bigger than yours. =)

Next time go for reliability over size. I'll stick with the most egregious misstatement of facts from this site:

Military deaths from fanatic Nazis, and Japanese numbered in the thousands and continued for over three years after WWII victory was declared.

In fact there were no military deaths during either the Japanese or German occupations. You can find an article
here from a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that sheds a bit more light on this particular myth that nowadays is largely passed on only by the likes of Ann Coulter.

More troops alone would not likely fix the current problems in Iraq; as long as the US continues to pursue nation building on the cheap, it is not likely that it will ever see the sort of success in Iraq that it did in Japan and Germany. More troops are probably an inevitability, however. The most pressing need the US is facing in Iraq is the ability to effectively provide security to the nation's people and institutions, and it is unlikely that the US can meet its objectives in this regard through a reliance on Iraqi soldiers and police alone, despite earlier optimistic assertions to the contrary from members of the US Administration.

[Aristotle]

Kharum, do you want us to fail to bring democracy to Iraq or succeed?