The Truth On Iraq: It's Devastated
- Thread starter Mcluhan
- Start date
Precisely.Ranger68 said:What sort of attacks would those be?
You're being very vague.
Assassinating the head of government?
Wow.
Even assuming the US *could* pull that off (not a chance), it's a frightening proposal.
Israel has very succesfully taken out some of the Hamas leaders as a retaliation for terror attacks. Seems to be working for them.
You reaaly don't believe that the USA could pull it off? I beg to differ.
Ranger, the “Iraq invasion, a blunder for national security� argument rightly must connect to the rise of Usama Bin Ladin. OBL is distinguished as the first terrorist criminal in the world to go global. But after 9/11 he was still, just “a terrorist at large’.Ranger68 said:
My argument has always been that the invasion is DETRIMENTAL to national security and thus the *national* interest. I think it is of interest to a small cabal of people in the administration, and does nothing but harm the country as a whole.
The Iraq war vaulted OBL to demi-god status when the US justified the invasion of Iraq by claiming it was a necessary part of their war against terrorism, ergo against OBL, ringleader.
The counter move by OBL was to pick a local deputy in Iraq, and personalize the struggle even more publically. Now we see the Mujahideen gaining in support. And who is their spiritual godfather? Why OBL of course. The only terror guru from the Arab street that went toe-to-toe with the US.
Before Iraq, OBL was a “a terrorist at large’ the US claimed, with a following of less than 5,000; and they claimed to have eliminated 75% of that lot. After Iraq, OBL’s forces are now equal to the American forces in Iraq, and OBL’s forces are not losing.
Measured in terms of strengthening OBL, Iraq is a disaster for US national security, clearly.
There's a big difference between a Hamas leader and the leader of a nation like Iraq or Syria. Plus, the Mossad's humint is orders of magnitude better than the US'. Whether *Israel* could do it or not is a different question - but not entirely.langeweile said:Precisely.
Israel has very succesfully taken out some of the Hamas leaders as a retaliation for terror attacks. Seems to be working for them.
You reaaly don't believe that the USA could pull it off? I beg to differ.
Do you recall the US trying to nail Saddam with bombings at the outset of this latest incursion? All the hooplah around the thought that they might have nailed him with a bomb?
How could the US pull off the assassination of a major world leader?
Also, what makes you think this is remotely justified?? This question is by FAR the more interesting. (Much of that is because, if you think the US *could* pull off an operation like that, you're sadly mistaken - they couldn't even get *Castro* for God's sake - the head of a banana republic.) But, I'm interested in what makes you think: (a) it's justified; (b) it's going to be remotely acceptable to *anyone*; (c) it's going to solve anything.
This is a truly frightening notion.
The first terrorist to go global? That's a laugh.Mcluhan said:Ranger, the “Iraq invasion, a blunder for national security� argument rightly must connect to the rise of Usama Bin Ladin. OBL is distinguished as the first terrorist criminal in the world to go global. But after 9/11 he was still, just “a terrorist at large’.
The Iraq war vaulted OBL to demi-god status when the US justified the invasion of Iraq by claiming it was a necessary part of their war against terrorism, ergo against OBL, ringleader.
The counter move by OBL was to pick a local deputy in Iraq, and personalize the struggle even more publically. Now we see the Mujahideen gaining in support. And who is their spiritual godfather? Why OBL of course. The only terror guru from the Arab street that went toe-to-toe with the US.
Before Iraq, OBL was a “a terrorist at large’ the US claimed, with a following of less than 5,000; and they claimed to have eliminated 75% of that lot. After Iraq, OBL’s forces are now equal to the American forces in Iraq, and OBL’s forces are not losing.
Measured in terms of strengthening OBL, Iraq is a disaster for US national security, clearly.
I believe that's part of the rhetoric, but we've been through this before - nobody buys that OBL had anything to do with Iraq.
You're totally on the ball.
It had nothing to do with US security, everything to do with increasing US power (real and perceived). It will accomplish little of even that objective.
Would you expect any less from the name's sake of the 'Global village' inventor to point that out... lolRanger68 said:The first terrorist to go global?
That's a laugh.
You're totally on the ball.
Rather than attacking Syria, the United States would have better luck using the "carrot" rather than the "stick" approach. Promising economic benefits and returning land lost to Israel would definitly help convince the Syrian leadership to rein in the insurgents and its supporters in Syria.
Attacking Syria would only push the nation to assisting the Iraqi insurgents.
Its seems that many people opposed to the war and the occupation believe that the United States has lost Iraq. The war is far from over and the United States still has enough resources to oufight and outlast it opponents.
It has not even been two years since the United States invaded Iraq and history has shown that a determined enemy will not be defeated overnight.
The key to US victory is in building and developing Iraqi security forces. Its easier said then done but there have been units that have performed quite well against the insurgents. Integrating US troops with Iraqi security units will only further the effectiveness of these units.
There are many Iraqis who lost there lives due to the indiscrimate insurgents attacks. Its seems that every insurgent attack against the Americans takes a least one Iraqi life. Lately, the targets have been Iraqi themselves and I think this will further push more Iraqis to fight for the future of Iraq. Not for the Americans, but for the future of a free Iraq.
A free Iraq that does not include the Americans but also does not accept the insurgents and what they represent. Remember, the insurgents on the most part are from Saddam's old regime, die hard Baathists or hard core fundamentalists. These insurgents represent a possible future that most Iraqis would reject; a choice of a Saddam style dictatorship or Taliban-like regime.
I think the media has not really conveyed the fact that there are lot of Iraqis who hate the insurgents (or at the very least do not support the insurgent campaign). These Iraqi do not speak up because they are afraid of the insurgents and possible reprisals.
40, 000 insurgents and 200, 000 supporters seems rather high to me....
But even if these numbers are correct; the Iraqi numbers against the insurgents are far higher than the ones for them.
The United States, the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Security Forces has time on their side. Patience and prudent planning will bring Iraq out this of this violent and bloody conflict.
Attacking Syria would only push the nation to assisting the Iraqi insurgents.
Its seems that many people opposed to the war and the occupation believe that the United States has lost Iraq. The war is far from over and the United States still has enough resources to oufight and outlast it opponents.
It has not even been two years since the United States invaded Iraq and history has shown that a determined enemy will not be defeated overnight.
The key to US victory is in building and developing Iraqi security forces. Its easier said then done but there have been units that have performed quite well against the insurgents. Integrating US troops with Iraqi security units will only further the effectiveness of these units.
There are many Iraqis who lost there lives due to the indiscrimate insurgents attacks. Its seems that every insurgent attack against the Americans takes a least one Iraqi life. Lately, the targets have been Iraqi themselves and I think this will further push more Iraqis to fight for the future of Iraq. Not for the Americans, but for the future of a free Iraq.
A free Iraq that does not include the Americans but also does not accept the insurgents and what they represent. Remember, the insurgents on the most part are from Saddam's old regime, die hard Baathists or hard core fundamentalists. These insurgents represent a possible future that most Iraqis would reject; a choice of a Saddam style dictatorship or Taliban-like regime.
I think the media has not really conveyed the fact that there are lot of Iraqis who hate the insurgents (or at the very least do not support the insurgent campaign). These Iraqi do not speak up because they are afraid of the insurgents and possible reprisals.
40, 000 insurgents and 200, 000 supporters seems rather high to me....
But even if these numbers are correct; the Iraqi numbers against the insurgents are far higher than the ones for them.
The United States, the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Security Forces has time on their side. Patience and prudent planning will bring Iraq out this of this violent and bloody conflict.
Last edited:
Manji, I don't believe there is any way the US will be able to outlast the insurgents in Iraq. As long as they are there - whether it's six months or six years - they will be seen as foreign invaders by a *large* portion of the Iraqi population, and the situation will be a dangerous, chaotic mess. Yes, history has shown that a determined enemy will not be defeated overnight - and that an insurgent guerilla army will fight for as long as it takes.
Time is NOT on the US' side. Support for the US mission in Iraq continues to erode at home. If they're still there in *another* two years, what do you think support at home will be like? I'd guess it will be practically zilch.
No, in the words of the administration, "We don't do nation-building". They're going to speed through the elections, then mostly get out. (Perhaps trying to sign deals for military basing options with the "new regime".) When they do, the new regime will be undone, the Iraqis will settle their own affairs without further US meddling, and let the chips fall where they may.
"Patience and prudent planning" would have seen the US stay out. LOL That phrase now has little to do with the US mission.
Time is NOT on the US' side. Support for the US mission in Iraq continues to erode at home. If they're still there in *another* two years, what do you think support at home will be like? I'd guess it will be practically zilch.
No, in the words of the administration, "We don't do nation-building". They're going to speed through the elections, then mostly get out. (Perhaps trying to sign deals for military basing options with the "new regime".) When they do, the new regime will be undone, the Iraqis will settle their own affairs without further US meddling, and let the chips fall where they may.
"Patience and prudent planning" would have seen the US stay out. LOL That phrase now has little to do with the US mission.
OBL connected the “Arab struggle� to the Palestinian struggle as a political convenience to unite Arab emotions against the US. I think OBL gives not a wit about the Palestinians. They have always been the poor cousins that nobody wants. I am sure the average Syrian feels the same way. The common element bonding Arabs in the street, is they hate Israel. Bush wrapping his arms around Sharon was a political faux pas for any President wishing to maintain a neutral negotiating stance.Manji said:Rather than attacking Syria, the United States would have better luck using the "carrot" rather than the "stick" approach. Promising economic benefits and returning land lost to Israel would definitly help convince the Syrian leadership to rein in the insurgents and its supporters in Syria....
Attacking Syria would only push the nation to assisting the Iraqi insurgents.
I think the average Iraqi is more concerned about potable water and not ending up dead while asleep in their beds.
Its seems that many people opposed to the war and the occupation believe that the United States has lost Iraq. The war is far from over and the United States still has enough resources to oufight and outlast it opponents.
The political will of the US war effort rests with the people. Do you really think the US population cares about winning this war? They care about not losing the war. It’s a matter of face. Nixon withdrew from ‘nam “with dignity�. The US swallowed the word, as in swallowing pride, and moved on quickly, trying to forget. The population turned its back on the vets because America lost face. If you remember this lesson it will help predict the future. As Martin Luther King said, the US is a ten day nation. Meaning in ten days they could forget about Iraq.
It has not even been two years since the United States invaded Iraq and history has shown that a determined enemy will not be defeated overnight.
Huh? History has shown that when people are fighting on their own turf, they tend to outlast an invading army.
The tenet about invaders being outlasted applies:
increasingly with the amount of power the people of the invading nation have at home - that is, it applies very heavily when the invader is a liberal democracy, and less so when they are a dictatorship or an autocracy; and,
increasingly with the prevalence of free media at home - that is, it applies very heavily in a nation like the US with readily available Internet and several hundred news channels, and less so when the media and information flow is almost totally state-controlled (Nazi Germany, say).
These two are often related, but aren't necessarily conjoined.
This means that, as history marches on and the free flow of information increases, occupying armies will have an increasingly tough time staying put in the face of armed insurgency - the people at home will tolerate casualties less and less. Consider that the "Somalia line" was *twenty*. That is, the US pulled out of Somalia, considering it a disaster, when the military suffered fewer than *twenty* deaths - a mere platoon-sized defeat in historical terms.
In the past, this was often not an issue. Consider the Nazi occupation of Yugoslavia and Poland, for example. Really, no amount of partisan activity was going to eject the German army from those countries, and the Nazi responses, using relatively few troops, were often savage. Nazi Germany, of course, was a dictatorship with totally state-controlled media. This means two things - that the government was less likely to be swayed from their desired course of action no matter what the cost, and that the population was less likely to even have knowledge of happenings beyond their borders outside of what the propaganda machine told them. You could also consider the US' history - when twenty or two hundred casualties might not have even been sniffed at - after all, that's what the military is for. The US tolerated a war which saw them fighting *amongst themselves* and which created death tolls MANY orders of magnitude higher.
I find it practically impossible to believe that the US people, having been committed to war with scant reason, will continue to stomach annual casualties in the thousand-range for very long. There will *not* come a time when these casualties stop being reported, and I think it very unlikely that the insurgency will grind to a halt. The US will be forced to withdraw "under fire", as it were.
increasingly with the amount of power the people of the invading nation have at home - that is, it applies very heavily when the invader is a liberal democracy, and less so when they are a dictatorship or an autocracy; and,
increasingly with the prevalence of free media at home - that is, it applies very heavily in a nation like the US with readily available Internet and several hundred news channels, and less so when the media and information flow is almost totally state-controlled (Nazi Germany, say).
These two are often related, but aren't necessarily conjoined.
This means that, as history marches on and the free flow of information increases, occupying armies will have an increasingly tough time staying put in the face of armed insurgency - the people at home will tolerate casualties less and less. Consider that the "Somalia line" was *twenty*. That is, the US pulled out of Somalia, considering it a disaster, when the military suffered fewer than *twenty* deaths - a mere platoon-sized defeat in historical terms.
In the past, this was often not an issue. Consider the Nazi occupation of Yugoslavia and Poland, for example. Really, no amount of partisan activity was going to eject the German army from those countries, and the Nazi responses, using relatively few troops, were often savage. Nazi Germany, of course, was a dictatorship with totally state-controlled media. This means two things - that the government was less likely to be swayed from their desired course of action no matter what the cost, and that the population was less likely to even have knowledge of happenings beyond their borders outside of what the propaganda machine told them. You could also consider the US' history - when twenty or two hundred casualties might not have even been sniffed at - after all, that's what the military is for. The US tolerated a war which saw them fighting *amongst themselves* and which created death tolls MANY orders of magnitude higher.
I find it practically impossible to believe that the US people, having been committed to war with scant reason, will continue to stomach annual casualties in the thousand-range for very long. There will *not* come a time when these casualties stop being reported, and I think it very unlikely that the insurgency will grind to a halt. The US will be forced to withdraw "under fire", as it were.
A book worth reviewing
Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East
by Patrick Seale
It gives one a good perspective from their vantage point. There are good reasons for the internal power struggles, the Alawites battles to maintain control (and incidently stop Islamic Fundamentalism) and how Syria has been constantly screwed over by its allies (Jordan and Egypt) and the US and Israel.
Very readable.
Understanding Syria is complicated. To those on this board with an interest in trying to get local - understanding the mentality of the people and for a different perspective on our myoptic view - I would recommend readingRanger68 said:If there is evidence that Syria supports the insurgents, perhaps the US should take that as yet another clue. That MANY Arabs don't agree with the invasion, to put it mildly.
Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East
by Patrick Seale
It gives one a good perspective from their vantage point. There are good reasons for the internal power struggles, the Alawites battles to maintain control (and incidently stop Islamic Fundamentalism) and how Syria has been constantly screwed over by its allies (Jordan and Egypt) and the US and Israel.
Very readable.
Re: A book worth reviewing
Not knowing much about Syria myself, how would you respond to Manji's statement:Cobra1 said:Understanding Syria is complicated. To those on this board with an interest in trying to get local - understanding the mentality of the people and for a different perspective on our myoptic view - I would recommend reading
Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East
by Patrick Seale
It gives one a good perspective from their vantage point. There are good reasons for the internal power struggles, the Alawites battles to maintain control (and incidently stop Islamic Fundamentalism) and how Syria has been constantly screwed over by its allies (Jordan and Egypt) and the US and Israel.
Very readable.
And do you think that the US would benefit from widening the conflict into Syria? Or maybe the question is, what are the pros and cons...are there any benefits whatsoever..Rather than attacking Syria, the United States would have better luck using the "carrot" rather than the "stick" approach. Promising economic benefits and returning land lost to Israel would definitly help convince the Syrian leadership to rein in the insurgents and its supporters in Syria.
Attacking Syria would only push the nation to assisting the Iraqi insurgents.
Ranger, I think you will enjoy this article on the hottest topic in Washington. I see negotiation with OBL is not on the list BTW!
Washington rumbles with questions on Iraq exit
David E. Sanger, Eric Schmitt, New York Times
Monday, January 10, 2005
Washington -- Three weeks before the election in Iraq, conversation has started bubbling up on Capitol Hill, in the Pentagon and some days even in the White House about when and how U.S. forces might begin to disengage in Iraq.
view the rest here..
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/10/MNG3VANRRI1.DTL
I would like to state for the record that I do not support George Bush, his policies or his reasons for being in Iraq. I do believe that now that the United States is in Iraq; it has to finish its mission (to stabilize Iraq and restore some semblance of a centralized and democratic government). I also believe that this mission is achievable (though this not a certainty).
American military casaulties had reached a thousand before the US elections; and it was pretty much a non-issue. That demonstrates that the people of the United States will be able to stomach more casaulties. Now, if the number should drastically increase and the US casaulty rate reaches the ten-thousand mark (or even five thousand); the public would definitly be much more vocal in withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Right now strong support for Bush, strong American nationalism and a weak opposition (against the war and Bush) will mean that the United States willl be in Iraq for at least two more years if not until 2008.
Also; both Bush supporters and haters know that if the US leaves Iraq prematurly; the Iraqi nation may become another Afghanistan. Another staging point for terrorist attacks to be lauched against America and the Western World.
Bush has even stated that he has been given political power and he will use that power to finish what he started in Iraq. Bush may be a fool; but even he realizes (or at least somebody told him...) that this war will define his legacy as President.
The US pull out of Somalia cannot be compared to Iraq. The Clinton Presidency had just come into power and immediatly proved its international inexperience by demonstrating weakness in Somalia (before and after the "BlackHawk Down incident). The US did not invest time, money and lives into Somalia so it figured it was better to cut its losses and head home. It was also the previous Bush Sr. administration that sent the US military into Somalia; so it probably made it much easier for Clinton to cut and run.
Its true that the Iraqis view the US as "invaders" and "occupiers" but most of those Iraqis believe that the Americans are not there to stay in Iraq or even possess the desire to stay in the Iraq. Most Iraqis realize that the Americans want to be out Iraq as much as the Iraqis want the Americans to be out of Iraq.
It is this belief that will convince most Iraqis that a "sit and wait" policy is much more beneifical than an "attack-the-Americans-now" policy. The Shites of Iraq such as the Supreme Council (the one that is influenced by Al-Sistani) are doing precisely that, sitting and waiting (at the same time consolidating their political power).
The US will speed through the elections but that will not convince them to leave; it will be whether the Iraqi Security forces are capable enough in handling the insurgency itself.
Fallujah may prove to be the turning point for the US military. It may have cost the United States political points but tactically it was a step in the right direction.
Mcluhan has stated numbers of enemy insurgents at 40, 000; but really, what do those numbers mean (even if they are correct)?
The insurgents no longer have a clear safe haven point (remember, the Vietnamese Communists had North Vietnam). That means they no longer have a command and control centre, a place to rearm and reorganize, train new recruits or even a place to safely hide without fear of Americans capturing or killing them.
These insurgents are human; they need a place to rest and relax and to ogranize and plan. No man can be a killing machine 24/7.
Since Fallujah, it might not seem apparent but the American military has the intiative. Sure the insurgents have been attacking but what did you expect? For them to roll over and die....
(Sorry, this post is a little bit disorganized .... a little tired today)
American military casaulties had reached a thousand before the US elections; and it was pretty much a non-issue. That demonstrates that the people of the United States will be able to stomach more casaulties. Now, if the number should drastically increase and the US casaulty rate reaches the ten-thousand mark (or even five thousand); the public would definitly be much more vocal in withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Right now strong support for Bush, strong American nationalism and a weak opposition (against the war and Bush) will mean that the United States willl be in Iraq for at least two more years if not until 2008.
Also; both Bush supporters and haters know that if the US leaves Iraq prematurly; the Iraqi nation may become another Afghanistan. Another staging point for terrorist attacks to be lauched against America and the Western World.
Bush has even stated that he has been given political power and he will use that power to finish what he started in Iraq. Bush may be a fool; but even he realizes (or at least somebody told him...) that this war will define his legacy as President.
The US pull out of Somalia cannot be compared to Iraq. The Clinton Presidency had just come into power and immediatly proved its international inexperience by demonstrating weakness in Somalia (before and after the "BlackHawk Down incident). The US did not invest time, money and lives into Somalia so it figured it was better to cut its losses and head home. It was also the previous Bush Sr. administration that sent the US military into Somalia; so it probably made it much easier for Clinton to cut and run.
Its true that the Iraqis view the US as "invaders" and "occupiers" but most of those Iraqis believe that the Americans are not there to stay in Iraq or even possess the desire to stay in the Iraq. Most Iraqis realize that the Americans want to be out Iraq as much as the Iraqis want the Americans to be out of Iraq.
It is this belief that will convince most Iraqis that a "sit and wait" policy is much more beneifical than an "attack-the-Americans-now" policy. The Shites of Iraq such as the Supreme Council (the one that is influenced by Al-Sistani) are doing precisely that, sitting and waiting (at the same time consolidating their political power).
The US will speed through the elections but that will not convince them to leave; it will be whether the Iraqi Security forces are capable enough in handling the insurgency itself.
Fallujah may prove to be the turning point for the US military. It may have cost the United States political points but tactically it was a step in the right direction.
Mcluhan has stated numbers of enemy insurgents at 40, 000; but really, what do those numbers mean (even if they are correct)?
The insurgents no longer have a clear safe haven point (remember, the Vietnamese Communists had North Vietnam). That means they no longer have a command and control centre, a place to rearm and reorganize, train new recruits or even a place to safely hide without fear of Americans capturing or killing them.
These insurgents are human; they need a place to rest and relax and to ogranize and plan. No man can be a killing machine 24/7.
Since Fallujah, it might not seem apparent but the American military has the intiative. Sure the insurgents have been attacking but what did you expect? For them to roll over and die....
(Sorry, this post is a little bit disorganized .... a little tired today)
Last edited:
"Attacking Syria would only push the nation to assisting the Iraqi insurgents." - Manji
"I think the average Iraqi is more concerned about potable water and not ending up dead while asleep in their beds." - Mcluhan
I agree, no arguement here. Not sure why you quoted me on this one.
Its seems that many people opposed to the war and the occupation believe that the United States has lost Iraq. The war is far from over and the United States still has enough resources to oufight and outlast it opponents. - Manji
The political will of the US war effort rests with the people. Do you really think the US population cares about winning this war? They care about not losing the war. It’s a matter of face. Nixon withdrew from ‘nam “with dignity�. The US swallowed the word, as in swallowing pride, and moved on quickly, trying to forget. The population turned its back on the vets because America lost face. If you remember this lesson it will help predict the future. As Martin Luther King said, the US is a ten day nation. Meaning in ten days they could forget about Iraq. - Mcluhan
Unfortunatly, the people voted for Bush!! The sixties are over, man!! Political apathy is at all time high and many Americans don't care about what is happening overseas. Watch the news... The Iraqi conflict barely makes any waves in the papers or the News Channels.
Sadly for the US soldiers and the Iraqi people but a bonus for Bush is that people are more pre-occupied with Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston's break-up then the elections in Iraq.
That means that Bush has a much more political leverage (at this moment) than Nixon did during the Nam era.
" It has not even been two years since the United States invaded Iraq and history has shown that a determined enemy will not be defeated overnight. " - Manji
"Huh? History has shown that when people are fighting on their own turf, they tend to outlast an invading army." - Mcluhan
Really?
I think you need to brush up on your military history.
Germany and Japan were both determined (and fanatical) foes and yet the United States managed to transform both nations into Western style/capatilist democracies.
As for fighting on other people's turf and not outlasting them; well, I got a ton of examples in history that will prove that statement as false.
Look at the Irish and the Scottish in regards to the British.
The Tibetans in regards to the Chinese.
Hell, the French in regard to the British in Canada...
Sorry, will try to continue this tomorrow. Am going to smoke a joint and watch the latest episode of BattleStar Galatica.
"I think the average Iraqi is more concerned about potable water and not ending up dead while asleep in their beds." - Mcluhan
I agree, no arguement here. Not sure why you quoted me on this one.
Its seems that many people opposed to the war and the occupation believe that the United States has lost Iraq. The war is far from over and the United States still has enough resources to oufight and outlast it opponents. - Manji
The political will of the US war effort rests with the people. Do you really think the US population cares about winning this war? They care about not losing the war. It’s a matter of face. Nixon withdrew from ‘nam “with dignity�. The US swallowed the word, as in swallowing pride, and moved on quickly, trying to forget. The population turned its back on the vets because America lost face. If you remember this lesson it will help predict the future. As Martin Luther King said, the US is a ten day nation. Meaning in ten days they could forget about Iraq. - Mcluhan
Unfortunatly, the people voted for Bush!! The sixties are over, man!! Political apathy is at all time high and many Americans don't care about what is happening overseas. Watch the news... The Iraqi conflict barely makes any waves in the papers or the News Channels.
Sadly for the US soldiers and the Iraqi people but a bonus for Bush is that people are more pre-occupied with Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston's break-up then the elections in Iraq.
That means that Bush has a much more political leverage (at this moment) than Nixon did during the Nam era.
" It has not even been two years since the United States invaded Iraq and history has shown that a determined enemy will not be defeated overnight. " - Manji
"Huh? History has shown that when people are fighting on their own turf, they tend to outlast an invading army." - Mcluhan
Really?
I think you need to brush up on your military history.
Germany and Japan were both determined (and fanatical) foes and yet the United States managed to transform both nations into Western style/capatilist democracies.
As for fighting on other people's turf and not outlasting them; well, I got a ton of examples in history that will prove that statement as false.
Look at the Irish and the Scottish in regards to the British.
The Tibetans in regards to the Chinese.
Hell, the French in regard to the British in Canada...
Sorry, will try to continue this tomorrow. Am going to smoke a joint and watch the latest episode of BattleStar Galatica.
Last edited:
Y
yychobbyist
The eerie similarities between Somalia and Iraq though are that in both instances, commanders on the ground requested stronger forces and were denied and that the Americans went in as lightly as possible.Manji said:
The US pull out of Somalia cannot be compared to Iraq. The Clinton Presidency had just come into power and immediatly proved its international inexperience by demonstrating weakness in Somalia (before and after the "BlackHawk Down incident). The US did not invest time, money and lives into Somalia so it figured it was better to cut its losses and head home. It was also the previous Bush Sr. administration that sent the US military into Somalia; so it probably made it much easier for Clinton to cut and run.
I still don't believe that there are enough U.S. troops in Iraq to do anything other than control small pockets of the country. U.S. forces there remain exposed and vulnerable as do the Iraqis who support the new regime. Because they do not control enough of the country whatever insurgents are there do have the ability to rest, eat, restock and take instructions from their leadership - the situation isn't perfect for them from a military perspective but it is not dire. Because there are so many of them, and I don't see a reason to question the number McLuhan posted, and because its likely that they are organized into small cells, it will be next to impossible for the U.S. to eliminate large numbers of them.
Okay, I'm back..... (Another great episode by the way!!)
Really, if you looked hard enough there are enough eerie similarities between Iraq and a thousand other conflicts/moments in history.
As for requesting stronger ground forces, the forces in Iraq have not been turned down for armaments/weapons.
Numbers have not been denied because the Pentagon does not want to provide added troops. It is because the Pentagon does not really have any troops to spare to give to the Iraqi conflict.
I agree that more troops are needed on the ground. The only way that the United States is going to supplement their numbers is by building the Iraqi Security forces.
As for numbers of insurgents.
Nobody has enough information to guess how many insurgents there are in Iraq. Could be 5000, 10000, 50000, etc.....
The Iraqi insurgents themselves don't know their actual numbers.
I don't suppose you guys considered that The Chief of Iraqi Intelligence (or the Minister of the Interior or whatever the hell he was) may have had an ulterior motive in stating that possibly inflated number.
He might have stated that number because he might not want the elections to be held. Around that time that report came out, the Allawi government was hinting that it did not think elections could be held safely.
The Chief may have over inflated the numbers to scare the Iraqi public, Allawi's political opponents and the Americans to delay the elections. He might have done it for his personal gain or he might have done it for the good Iraq? Who knows?
As for eliminating the resistance. Not impossible. Arrest, capture and kill. Rely on good intelligence, act swiftly and try not make too many enemies.
At the same time deprive the insurgents of their leadership and valuable members (specialized fighters such as demolitions experts).
Deprive them of their weapons and their ability to move through Iraq.
War against insurgents is one that takes time and patience. Its not solved by huge battles but by wearing down the enemy while at the same time strengthening your forces.
At the same time try to raise to good will of the people through community projects, rebuilding the infrastructure and providing employment. If the Iraqi people see a future ahead of them; most of them will wait it out. (Wouldn't you?)
The insurgency can be put down. Unfortuanatly, successes and failures in this type of war cannot be easily gauged.
Really, if you looked hard enough there are enough eerie similarities between Iraq and a thousand other conflicts/moments in history.
As for requesting stronger ground forces, the forces in Iraq have not been turned down for armaments/weapons.
Numbers have not been denied because the Pentagon does not want to provide added troops. It is because the Pentagon does not really have any troops to spare to give to the Iraqi conflict.
I agree that more troops are needed on the ground. The only way that the United States is going to supplement their numbers is by building the Iraqi Security forces.
As for numbers of insurgents.
Nobody has enough information to guess how many insurgents there are in Iraq. Could be 5000, 10000, 50000, etc.....
The Iraqi insurgents themselves don't know their actual numbers.
I don't suppose you guys considered that The Chief of Iraqi Intelligence (or the Minister of the Interior or whatever the hell he was) may have had an ulterior motive in stating that possibly inflated number.
He might have stated that number because he might not want the elections to be held. Around that time that report came out, the Allawi government was hinting that it did not think elections could be held safely.
The Chief may have over inflated the numbers to scare the Iraqi public, Allawi's political opponents and the Americans to delay the elections. He might have done it for his personal gain or he might have done it for the good Iraq? Who knows?
As for eliminating the resistance. Not impossible. Arrest, capture and kill. Rely on good intelligence, act swiftly and try not make too many enemies.
At the same time deprive the insurgents of their leadership and valuable members (specialized fighters such as demolitions experts).
Deprive them of their weapons and their ability to move through Iraq.
War against insurgents is one that takes time and patience. Its not solved by huge battles but by wearing down the enemy while at the same time strengthening your forces.
At the same time try to raise to good will of the people through community projects, rebuilding the infrastructure and providing employment. If the Iraqi people see a future ahead of them; most of them will wait it out. (Wouldn't you?)
The insurgency can be put down. Unfortuanatly, successes and failures in this type of war cannot be easily gauged.
Polls continue to show slipping support for the war in Iraq. Election-time is actually a BAD time to guage the public mood an any *one* particular issue. As time goes on and casualties mount, the public will tolerate them less - as has been shown in the polls I've seen.Manji said:American military casaulties had reached a thousand before the US elections; and it was pretty much a non-issue. That demonstrates that the people of the United States will be able to stomach more casaulties. Now, if the number should drastically increase and the US casaulty rate reaches the ten-thousand mark (or even five thousand); the public would definitly be much more vocal in withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Right now strong support for Bush, strong American nationalism and a weak opposition (against the war and Bush) will mean that the United States willl be in Iraq for at least two more years if not until 2008.
My guess is that the US will be out, as a major player, within a year.
This is actually contrary to the opinion of "Bush-haters" (which, I guess, is everyone who opposes the invasion). The LONGER the US stays, the worse the situation becomes - that is, the more terrorists will be created. Why do you think that if the US leaves now, Iraq will become another Afghanistan? What will change by the US staying? And, are you saying that it *wasn't* before?Manji said:Also; both Bush supporters and haters know that if the US leaves Iraq prematurly; the Iraqi nation may become another Afghanistan. Another staging point for terrorist attacks to be lauched against America and the Western World.
Bush has also stated that he has been given *divine* power - he says a lot of things. I agree that this war will define his legacy as President, and that it will almost certainly be a bad one.Manji said:Bush has even stated that he has been given political power and he will use that power to finish what he started in Iraq. Bush may be a fool; but even he realizes (or at least somebody told him...) that this war will define his legacy as President.
Why can't they be compared? Because you don't want them to be? They illustrate that the American public doesn't suffer casualties well except where they've been sold on a mission extremely well. I grant that the Republicans did a great job lying about Iraq. However, that public support has slipped dramatically over the last 18 months. I don't think any President - Bush Sr. or Jr. included - would have seriously committed the troops in Somalia after it was demonstrated that there are people *gasp* who don't want them around in their countries, no matter what the reason. They weren't there to propagate any real American policy - just to help out. Once it became clear that, sometimes, helping out is dangerous - they were gone.Manji said:The US pull out of Somalia cannot be compared to Iraq. The Clinton Presidency had just come into power and immediatly proved its international inexperience by demonstrating weakness in Somalia (before and after the "BlackHawk Down incident). The US did not invest time, money and lives into Somalia so it figured it was better to cut its losses and head home. It was also the previous Bush Sr. administration that sent the US military into Somalia; so it probably made it much easier for Clinton to cut and run.
I don't think you know what "most of the Iraqis" are thinking.Manji said:Its true that the Iraqis view the US as "invaders" and "occupiers" but most of those Iraqis believe that the Americans are not there to stay in Iraq or even possess the desire to stay in the Iraq. Most Iraqis realize that the Americans want to be out Iraq as much as the Iraqis want the Americans to be out of Iraq.
It is this belief that will convince most Iraqis that a "sit and wait" policy is much more beneifical than an "attack-the-Americans-now" policy. The Shites of Iraq such as the Supreme Council (the one that is influenced by Al-Sistani) are doing precisely that, sitting and waiting (at the same time consolidating their political power).
<snip>
Mcluhan has stated numbers of enemy insurgents at 40, 000; but really, what do those numbers mean (even if they are correct)?
We'll see what happens to the violence, over time. If you are right, it will slacken off considerably.
The problem with all of these operations is that civilian casualties can't be avoided - this FOMENTS opposition to the US occupation, even among moderates. Over time, the only thing that is likely to happen is that the US creates more opposition to their stay, and to representation by entities who came to power while the US was there.
40000 is a large number.
Actually, I think *you* need to brush up on your history. The Germans were NOT fanatical foes. The Nazis were. By the end of the war, few live Germans supported their government, and although there WAS fanatical fighting, it was either sparse (on the western front), or totally overwhelmed (on the eastern front). The German people were done fighting. Had the Allies invaded Japan, you would have seen truly FANATICAL fighting, and Allied casualties well over a million.Manji said:
Really?
I think you need to brush up on your military history.
Germany and Japan were both determined (and fanatical) foes and yet the United States managed to transform both nations into Western style/capatilist democracies.
A populace with *large* segments violently opposed to a foreign invader often has good success fighting them off, over time. Reread *my* post.
Please reread my post about the effects of time on this discussion. All of your examples are badly flawed, however - especially in light of the arguments made in my post - the Irish and Scottish achieved measures of independence (when the British became a more liberal democracy), the Tibetans quickly adopted pacifist tactics (against an authoritarian invader), and the French fought against the British on almost equal terms and were defeated in open battle, after which they were integrated into the rest of the country.Manji said:
As for fighting on other people's turf and not outlasting them; well, I got a ton of examples in history that will prove that statement as false.
Look at the Irish and the Scottish in regards to the British.
The Tibetans in regards to the Chinese.
Hell, the French in regard to the British in Canada...
Sorry, will try to continue this tomorrow. Am going to smoke a joint and watch the latest episode of BattleStar Galatica.
Actually, time and patience works *against* an invader, and *for* a guerilla army.Manji said:War against insurgents is one that takes time and patience. Its not solved by huge battles but by wearing down the enemy while at the same time strengthening your forces.
At the same time try to raise to good will of the people through community projects, rebuilding the infrastructure and providing employment. If the Iraqi people see a future ahead of them; most of them will wait it out. (Wouldn't you?)
The insurgency can be put down. Unfortuanatly, successes and failures in this type of war cannot be easily gauged.
The US is not raising any goodwill among the Iraqis by being there and fighting.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=2149&e=9&u=/cpress/20050108/ca_pr_on_wo/iraq
It is as much for the hope of inflicting casualties as it is for the hopes that the US will retaliate that a guerilla army fights. It is the nature of war that American retaliation will result in innocent Iraqis being killed and general destruction being sown. The US has, at times, been quite heavy-handed.
The US is NOT interested in nation-building - which is what you would propose they do to increase Iraqi goodwill.
Sure, you can gauge success - when attacks slacken, that's success. If they don't slacken, that's not success. Simple.
What do you think the population of Fallujah thinks of the American invasion?
Last edited:
