The Iraq War Anniversary — Where are we?

Here we are at the 3rd anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. Do we know how to measure its success/failure? Have we achieved victory or are we losing ground? How is Bush, the military spokesmen, the generals, the politicians, and the media handling the war? What needs to be said or be done that isn’t being done?

Let’s take a breather away from the pundits and ask you, the average Oregonian, your thoughts and opinions. Please comment. />

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 08:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 9 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Wayne Brady

    I never imagined 3 years ago that we would be as far along as we are. I thought it would be at least 5 years before they would have a constitution.

    The terrorists are making things difficult but the Iraqi army is getting better at a good pace. It is easy to train the privates. It takes a long time to train the officers and develop logistic support.

    There were certainly things that were unanticipated. This happens in all wars. Take a look at what happened in World War II. The army was constantly adapting. Many of things that were tried did not work.

    The public has to have a little patience. Even when we reduce our troop levels in Iraq, we will be far from finished in the war against the Islamic fascists.

  • Mrfactor

    Factor: 2 articles 2-day should be part of Iraq conversation “Deaths fall for U.S., rise for Iraqis” & “Anti-war protesters in SLC, elsewhere lament apathy”
    ( (

  • Tim Lyman

    We are winning…slowly. Much more slowly than I would have thought three years ago. IMHO a major contributing factor to the troubles in Iraq is border security. The smugglers in this area have been at it a long time and will move anything for anyone with money. Unfortunately, we’re proving not any better at guarding Iraq’s borders with Syria and Iran that we are at guarding our own with Mexico.

  • BadMan

    It certainly doesn’t help with suurender monkeys in our community like Earl “Spineless” Bluemenauer, Eric “The Red” Sten, and Tom “I Never Met a Terrorist In Portland” Potter. Did anyone else notice that Portland’s “End The War” demonstration was larger than San Francisco’s and Washington’s?
    Sort of goes to show you what sort of a retarded community Portland really is.

  • Bob Reid

    If you think Iran might require force (not necessarily by us alone) sometime in the future to take care of their nuclear threat just consider the difference in the difficulty depending on whether we have a friend or a foe in Iraq. Although the ourtcome in Iraq isn’t sure, it surely is worth a good effort.

  • Bert


    Forget about Iraq for a moment and that about this …

    If you had to go out and “create a democracy,” how would you go about doing it?

    Would military intervention be your choice?

    I would encourage grass roots social change movements perhaps with some body of government in exile. An exile body would slowly make a case for social change and build multi-sector support. Though dangerous, people inside would also advocate for change.

    This seems to have occurred to a limited extent with Iraq, but it is clear, that the movement was aligned with US interests, did not have the trust of Iraqis, and did not make in roads with the Sunnis. Moreover, an Iraqi leadership did not make a case to the global community.

    Nelson Mandela may not be appreciated on this blog, but you probably remember how he and the ANC were able to make a convincing case for social change in South Africa and build a global movement.

    There are many other examples of peoples developing social movements in dictatorial or repressive settings.

    I feel very bad for US soldiers in Iraq and the Iraqis when I think of what the US could have done with 200 Billion + dollars. That money could really have financed a lot of social capital and social movements.

    Your comments on Iran make me afraid that you don’t appreciate how much we need to learn more about the Middle East.

    Remember that we did not have “good intelligence” about Iraq and we would have done well to let the political process and inspections play out.

    Aren’t you just a little skeptical about the way information regarding Iran is being framed?

    Have you tried the old “put yourselves in their shoes” exercise? What would you do if your were Iran? (Nearby neighbors Pakistan, India, Israel all have nukes. Israel and Suadi Arabia strongly allied with an agressive US.) Do you know that the US and Britain toppled a democratically elected government in Iran in the 1950s and installed the Shah of Iran’s repressive regime? That is a defining symbol of how Iranians view the US. There is a history that preceded the hostage crisis which is the defining symbol of how Americans view Iran.

    It is important to listen to what Iranian “progressives” want. I don’t hear them advocating for the line the US is taking. If you want to achieve security, it would be important to build relationships with and listen to all kinds of Iranians, not just the ones who say the things that the current administration wants to hear.

  • Wayne Brady

    There is no way an uprising could succeed in Iraq for years. In the mean time Iraq was supporting and training terrorists.

    The inspections were not working. The Coalition had to act. They could not wait forever.

    It is beginning to look like the pre-war intelligence was not that far off. Lets see what else we learn from the captured documents.

    It is clear Iran has aggressive intentions. What policy will work with Iran is not clear yet. We cannot ignore the threat.

  • Bert

    What do you mean the inspections were not working?

    They were going around to sites and checking them and not finding anything. Which is what should have happened given that there were none. If Colin Powell and others had the damning intelligence they thought they had, well all they had to do was give it to the inspectors and they would have checked it out.

    What new revelations are you referring to? What are the NON-POLITICAL intelligence experts saying about those revelations?

    What do you mean by “it is clear that Iran has agressive intentions?”

    Could you provide some DATA beyond the fact that they might support groups like Hamas?

  • Ron

    What’s with the right-wing paranoia of the UN? I have met some top UN officials and they are very well balanced people. Is it understandable if they might get upset if a segment of American society is always harping at them? To subdue Iraq with the UN would have taken some extraordinary pressure from the US–I certainly won’t argue with that–but the cost might have been fifty billion instead of 800. But wouldn’t it have saved American lives? And saved US dollars for other terrorism control?

    A lot of the paranoia of the UN is rooted in Texas fundamentalist premilleniallism, i.e. UN as AntiChrist. That idea started with a teenage girl in Scotland in the 1800’s. Go figure.

  • Wayne Brady

    In response to Bert:

    When I said the inspections were not working, I meant that they had too few people to inspect a country the size of California. It would take years to cover all of the country. Some of the audio tapes recovered from Iraq indicate the Iraqis were also using deception to defeat the inspections.

    The new revelations I was referring to are derived from the documents and audio tapes recovered from Iraq. At this point, only about 4% of the documents have been translated. What has been translated so far indicates that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction.

    Indications of Iran’s aggressive intentions include support of terrorists, statements about destroying Israel, and their insistence on processing nuclear material in their own country. Their support of terrorists includes supplying bomb making materials to the terrorists in Iraq.

    I am basing these statements on news stories. I have not read the documents. Some of the documents have been released and are posted at

    You might also read the New York Times article at

    In response to Ron:

    It is not paranoia when it is true. The UN is a useless organization controlled by countries run by dictators. The attempts to make the Human Rights Commission functional are a case in point. The human rights abusers will not let this happen. They have plenty of votes to stop any reform. The UN peacekeeping efforts are always disasters. In terms of fighting wars, the UN cannot do anything without the US. If the UN had backed the invasion of Iraq, the vast majority of the forces would come from the United States and the UN would probably make it harder to fight the war. The US casualties would probably been higher.

    Concerns about the effectiveness of the UN have nothing to do with religion. Any rational observer can see that the UN is useless and cannot be fixed.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)