Post by: Paddy on June 13, 2007, 01:30:22 PM
Iraq surge a failure, top Democrats tell Bush
Jun 13 04:38 PM US/Eastern
Top US congressional Democrats bluntly told President George W. Bush Wednesday that his Iraq troop "surge" policy was a failure.
Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the president over Iraq by sending him a letter, ahead of a White House meeting later on Wednesday.
"As many had forseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.
"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.
"It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.
"In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops.
The letter appeared to preview a fresh showdown over Iraq between anti-war Democrats and the president, just a few weeks after Bush forced his foes to strip troop withdrawal timelines from a 100 billion dollar emergency war budget.
It also came a few days after the US military mourned its 3,500th soldier killed in action in Iraq.
Pelosi and Reid told Bush in the letter that they planned to send him new legislation to "limit the US mission in Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of US forces, and bring the war to a responsible end."
On Tuesday, Reid said that Senate Democrats would attach troop withdrawal deadlines to a Defense Department Authorization bill, due to be debated within weeks.
The next critical point in the showdown between Bush and Congress over Iraq is expected in September, when US commander in Iraq David Petraeus is due to report on progress in the strategy to "surge" up to 30,000 more US troops into the war-ravaged nation.
Even senior Republicans have said they expected the president will have little choice but to make adjustments in the Iraq strategy, once the report is made public.
Let's quit squandering lives and money in this endless black hole cesspool. You screwed the pooch, George, step up and admit it.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070613203802.7yla5iav&show_article=1
Post by: The Rabbi on June 13, 2007, 01:43:15 PM
The Democrats have been waiving the surrender flag for so long they wouldn't know what victory looked like if it bit them in the butt.
Post by: Paddy on June 13, 2007, 01:47:35 PM
Quote
they wouldn't know what victory looked like if it bit them in the butt.
So, just what does victory in Iraq look like?
Post by: thebaldguy on June 13, 2007, 02:08:44 PM
I thought soldiers would be welcome in the streets like in the liberation of Paris! You know, people cheering and clapping and crying tears of joy for the liberators! Saddam's evil government is gone! A new, stable democratic government installed to solve the countries' problems and issues. Soldiers home in less than a year. Maybe even Iraq becoming a tourist destination to see the "Cradle of Civilization". Oh, and an endless crude oil supply with a friendly government selling us cheap oil.
That is what my idea of victory in Iraq looks like. My girlfriend's brother leaves for Iraq soon for a second tour with the National Guard. I almost can't believe he's been called up a second time.
I guess we still don't have that victory yet.
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 13, 2007, 02:46:13 PM
Quote
I thought soldiers would be welcome in the streets like in the liberation of Paris! You know, people cheering and clapping and crying tears of joy for the liberators! Saddam's evil government is gone!
Well, it wasn't quite Paris, but all of that did happen. Are you ignorant of this, or just in denial?
Post by: thebaldguy on June 13, 2007, 04:31:57 PM
Quote
I thought soldiers would be welcome in the streets like in the liberation of Paris! You know, people cheering and clapping and crying tears of joy for the liberators! Saddam's evil government is gone!
Well, it wasn't quite Paris, but all of that did happen. Are you ignorant of this, or just in denial?
I'm not in denial. I guess the cheering in the streets finally stopped though. Must have missed that. I think the cheering has been replaced with "insurgents" shooting at US soldiers. I think the other stuff hasn't happened yet. And fistful, I'm not so sure it's gonna happen either!
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 13, 2007, 05:25:05 PM
Post by: brimic on June 13, 2007, 05:30:20 PM
The democratic (sic) party is glad and willing to trade soldiers lives for votes.
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 13, 2007, 06:20:07 PM
Quote
In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops.
Well, if we have more troops there...
Friendly body count tells us little of the success of the surge. How many of the enemy were killed? Were our boys killed because they are fighting more or fighting harder, finding more targets to attack and what-not?
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 13, 2007, 06:42:23 PM
Quote
Friendly body count tells us little of the success of the surge. How many of the enemy were killed? Were our boys killed because they are fighting more or fighting harder, finding more targets to attack and what-not?
Great assessment Fistful. Unknown. Yes, yes and not able to tell you.
One thing I can say because it was reported in the news is that about a week ago we were able to catch a couple of bad guys getting ready to launch 12 rockets at the IZ in the act. They were only able to get two into the air before they were desposed of. The other 10 rockets were destroyed after a couple of well placed rounds from an Apache.
We are making headway overhere, but major strides are not going to happen overnight. IMHO by the end of the year, if the media and politicians let the truth be told, everyone should see improvements in the situation overhere.
Post by: cosine on June 13, 2007, 06:48:13 PM
We are making headway overhere, but major strides are not going to happen overnight. IMHO by the end of the year, if the media and politicians let the truth be told, everyone should see improvements in the situation overhere.
Good to hear.
I don't, however, expect the media to let it be made well known.
Post by: Leatherneck on June 14, 2007, 02:20:36 AM
TC
Post by: roo_ster on June 14, 2007, 04:49:28 AM
The Democrats and various lefty types are letting slip their false-face of love of country and respect for our armed forces. We see the weasels for who they are as they castigate those who do the heavy lifting for Western Civilization.
Post by: K Frame on June 14, 2007, 06:01:42 AM
No car bombings, no American deaths, no Iraqi deaths?
Why, the surge is a HUGE failure because the insurgents are just marshalling their forces for a monumental attack.
Post by: ConfuseUs on June 14, 2007, 09:56:55 AM
The problem is that getting rid of Saddam (a huge military victory in every sense of the word) has been spoiled by the ongoing grind of holding the Iraqis back from butchering each other.
Does
Quote
"...I have heard of military operations which were clumsy but swift, but I have never heard of one that was skillful and lasted for a long time. It is never beneficial to a nation to have a military operation continue for a long time."
Sun Tzu
Sun Tzu
ring true or what?
Post by: K Frame on June 14, 2007, 10:24:29 AM
What constituted a long time in his time?
Would it bear any resemblence to what is considered to be a "long time" today given that most people these days seem to have the attention spans of a dead flounder?
Post by: Paddy on June 14, 2007, 10:33:54 AM
Just how long do you think this so-called 'war' should last? Is there some time frame limit or do you just think we should continue to throw lives and money into it for as long as GWB remains president?
Post by: RevDisk on June 14, 2007, 05:46:26 PM
We are making headway overhere, but major strides are not going to happen overnight. IMHO by the end of the year, if the media and politicians let the truth be told, everyone should see improvements in the situation overhere.
I'll believe it when the ethnic tension eases, not a moment before. Come to think of it, tack on the need for the ISF to stand on their own feet. IPS/NP are theoretically a bit further along, but ethnic issues are still entrenched.
We both know the second we leave, Kurdistan will become an issue. They are already quasi independent and rapidly becoming (comparatively) quite prosperous. I'm well aware of what the intel reports currently read. Kurdish forces are making excellent headway in preparing for an eventual war against the Iraqi govt should they try to stop Kurdish independence. Personally, I don't think they'd occupy further south than Diyala, Kirkuk, and Ninawa. They'd probably be willing to concede parts of those parezge even if they did occupy them.
Improvements != stability
Post by: K Frame on June 14, 2007, 06:06:04 PM
Well, WWII lasted from what, Sept 1939 (Germany invaded Poland) to August 1945 (Hiroshima & Nagasaki). That's six years. WWII also involved some 100 million military personnel and saw some 60 million casualties. It was a real war, however, (as in declared by Congress) and not this limited engagement let's play whackamole toesies pattycake BS.
Just how long do you think this so-called 'war' should last? Is there some time frame limit or do you just think we should continue to throw lives and money into it for as long as GWB remains president?
Just how long do you think this so-called 'war' should last? Is there some time frame limit or do you just think we should continue to throw lives and money into it for as long as GWB remains president?
Well, how long did the Democrats keep Vietnam going?
Given the avowed aims of these people, I think we should just get it over with and surrender now. It's obvious that far too few people have the testicles to do anything difficult or important anymore.
"There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction."
Sorry, JFK, people just don't comprehend that anymore.
I wasn't a big fan of going into Iraq. TFL is rife with threads of me voicing my objections. I think it was a big mistake.
But I know it would be an even HUGER mistake to simply do what the Democrats want to do -- leave a puddle of yellow water on the ground as we flee in terror.
What's the solution to the insurgency in Iraq? Deal with it the same way that the British dealt with the communist insurgency in Malaya in the 1950s. That took 12 years to quell, but it was crushed.
The only problem with that is that the Pussycrats... er... Democrats don't have the stones for that. It would immediately be moaning and lamenting about rights and how the mad, bearded turban-clad suicide bomber is really a tender, gentle, misunderstood soul.
Post by: Ned Hamford on June 14, 2007, 06:22:13 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 14, 2007, 06:48:40 PM
Sun Sue needs to define "long time."
What constituted a long time in his time?
Would it bear any resemblence to what is considered to be a "long time" today given that most people these days seem to have the attention spans of a dead flounder?
What constituted a long time in his time?
Would it bear any resemblence to what is considered to be a "long time" today given that most people these days seem to have the attention spans of a dead flounder?
Well, WWII lasted...six years.
Which is a pretty short war. The question was, how long was a long campaign in Sun Tzu's context? I don't know. But I do know that England and France fought something called The Hundred Years War. The Papists and Protestants fought something called The Thirty Years War.
Post by: roo_ster on June 14, 2007, 08:07:52 PM
Heck, the West has been at odds with militant Islam for nigh on 1400 years.
BTW, the Democrat alpha male is a cross-dresser, from the pics I've seen of that Pelosi fellow.
Post by: ConfuseUs on June 15, 2007, 12:07:27 AM
Quote
Which is a pretty short war. The question was, how long was a long campaign in Sun Tzu's context? I don't know. But I do know that England and France fought something called The Hundred Years War. The Papists and Protestants fought something called The Thirty Years War.
Actually, given the sheer destructive power unleashed in WWII, that was a pretty long war. Every participant except the U.S. was devastated by it. It may have been short in duration by the standards of previous European conflicts, but the amount of Europe and Europeans destroyed by it was unprecedented.
Since the Iraq war has been going on for 4 years now with no real progress made towards a stable, peaceful, democratic, undivided Iraq, then we will be fighting it until we get tired of it, or until pigs sprout wings. We are already experiencing the negatives associated with long military operations: our money is declining in value. Most of that is related to nervousness around the world about a currency backed by an oil dependent economy run by a government fighting a war in a major oil producing region.
Post by: Phantom Warrior on June 15, 2007, 02:46:35 AM
We are in the middle of something that is at very least headed towards a civil war. If not already there. We are trying to suppress the fighting between Shia and Sunni and we are getting hit by both sides. And, as was also pointed out, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are not doing their job. If we leave they MIGHT step up and shoulder the responsibility for the security of Iraq. But as long as we are out there doing their job for them, there is no need to.
Iraq is like a problem child right now. But at some point, you have to let that problem child sink or swim on their own merits. We destroyed Sadaam's army, captured him, established a government, trained up the ISF, and have given this country billions of dollars of aid. What more do we need to do?
I think ultimately the solution to Iraq will involve homogenizing the populace. Whether that means the Sunnis getting pushed out or Iraq being broken up into Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish partitions, I don't know. But, like RevDisk pointed out, "Kurdistan" is doing very well. They have a functioning, stable government and a productive society. Because Kurdistan is made up of Kurds, without the tensions between Shia and Sunni to tear it apart. A good example of partitioning would be the breakup of Yugoslavia into Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, etc. Which allowed these hostile factions to be broken up into smaller, homogeneous countries were like people can live peacefully.
But keeping one third of all Army Brigade Combat Teams (that's active and reserve) in Iraq at any given time is not the answer. And it's doing no good.
Post by: griz on June 15, 2007, 05:35:17 AM
Quote
If you blindly swallow the lies of the 4th estate then its easy to convince you that Iraq is a failure. I get a completely different picture from people that have actually been there.
An honest question: What is the truth that's not getting out? I've talked to a handful of Iraq II vets, and they are typically positive about the US being there. But even the people who have been there don't seem to see a real solution to stopping the factions in that country from wanting to kill each other. Is there better overall news that the media isn't telling?
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 15, 2007, 06:28:21 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 15, 2007, 12:26:06 PM
Quote
But overall the general feel I get from the reports I am privy to that things are started to slowly turn the corner.
But you don't slowly turn the corner in combat! You've got to clear the fatal funnel, and secure the area! Fast, decisive, violent action!
Oh, wait, was that metaphor?
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 15, 2007, 08:40:58 PM
Post by: Art Eatman on June 17, 2007, 03:37:06 AM
Damfino. If what I'm reading is correct, it's hard to claim failure before something actually happens...
Post by: griz on June 17, 2007, 03:42:44 AM
Post by: Paddy on June 17, 2007, 06:24:21 AM
Nobody has yet described what 'victory' in Iraq should look like.
Post by: Balog on June 17, 2007, 03:58:23 PM
Nobody has yet described what 'victory' in Iraq should look like.
Quote from: Mike Irwin
What's the solution to the insurgency in Iraq? Deal with it the same way that the British dealt with the communist insurgency in Malaya in the 1950s. That took 12 years to quell, but it was crushed.
Wow, for once I totally agree with Mike Irwin!
Ok, so let's get it straight that the very idea of a "War on Terror" is so stupid as to be laughable; or it would be if it didn't involve so many guys dying. It's like declaring war on hatred, or intolerance, or any of that other bullshit feel good hippy crap. People are gonna hate and kill each other for as long as people are alive. But we could win the war in Iraq...... but we aren't gonna.
Look at the history of occupations. Moving in, destroying the existing power base, and then trying to get several warring factions previously only suppressed by violence into a state of happy happy joy joy in a few years is pretty much unprecedented. If we could just be honest enough to say "Ya'll are vital to the welfare of most of the world, ya'll are such colossal *expletive deleted*ck-tards you couldn't govern your way out of a paper bag (because your old tribal customs and attitudes are friggin retarded), so we're gonna make you our colony until we can trust you to not act like petulant children with bombs" then we could win. Not easily, not soon, and not with the puling bitches the "greatest generation's" kids have turned out to be.
Post by: grampster on June 17, 2007, 05:55:00 PM
Iraq has been said to have fallen into civil war. I don't believe that's true because only a portion of Iraq has not been quieted down. It doesn't meet the definition of insurgency either, in my opinion. In my view Sunni and Shia are religious factions that are at odds, and have been for hundreds of years. 13 and 14th century tribalism and religious fanatacism hold sway, especially after you throw in Wahabbist Islam. Saddam kept it in check by being brutal and building a society where a man could not trust his own family. He was the quintissential tribal overloard.
Iranians are taking advantage of the situation by sending in fanatics to stir up the factionalism between Shia and Sunni. There is also an internal revenge thing going on by both Shia and Sunni.
Meanwhile America is trying to turn Iraq into something it cannot grasp at the grass roots level. Iraq does have many educated and sophisticated citizens. There are not enough of them to build a stable government around as the grass roots Iraqi doesn't have a clue, or really care mostly, they are tribal. They are frightened. I do admire their bravery, though, to try and live a normal life in the middle of the chaos parts of Baghdad and the Sunni triangle.
I choose to support the decision to unseat Saddam. Any open minded person who can read and think has only to look back to '91 and after. Most of the political noise coming from Democrats and the Left is double tongued nonsense. The all believed Saddam to be a danger to the world and they said so, till their political future shifted and they lost power. Hypocrites. They, with their politics, have helped make the place the mess it is by playing politics with war.
That being said, we are in a dammed if we do and dammed if we don't scenario. The only political victory can be the rise of someone who can control the factionalism and keep the Iranians in check. There is no one on the horizon. Militarily, we can win by destroying Iraq and making it an example of our military might. That would settle Iran and Syria down as they respect force and might , it is their culture. We have the ability to do that, but not the will.
The third choice is a long and bloody occupation until the Iraqi strongman shows up, or we decide to destroy Iraq. Either one not likely, soon.
Thus the quandary. We went in with a noble purpose and we have tried to be noble with rules of engagement that kills our treasure. I have read much about the culture of the area and it seems to me the only way victory can be had is the most distasteful of scenarios: Iraq would have to be destroyed and then occupied and rebuilt. I don't believe we have the stomach for it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 18, 2007, 01:30:18 AM
Quote
Ok, so let's get it straight that the very idea of a "War on Terror" is so stupid as to be laughable.
Your hyper-literalism is so stupid as to be laughable. "War on Terror" is a slogan, a nickname, a short-hand phrase for a diverse and complicated set of policies. It is not meant to be taken in a concrete sense of dropping bombs on a technique or an emotion. You and many others need to quit pretending that it is.
Post by: Art Eatman on June 18, 2007, 05:31:53 AM
Real-world doings aren't as egregiously simple as seen on TV: Both in prime-time crapola and the Sunday AM talking heads yawp-babble.
Art
Post by: De Selby on June 18, 2007, 05:48:26 AM
Quote
Militarily, we can win by destroying Iraq and making it an example of our military might. That would settle Iran and Syria down as they respect force and might , it is their culture. We have the ability to do that, but not the will.
I would say that we did do just that-destroy Iraq and make it an example of our military might.
Instead of settling Iran and Syria down, it made them more belligerent and has encouraged them to move into a post-destruction Iraq that the United States is incapable of governing.
"Their culture" is not that exotic and they're behaving exactly as you would predict almost any population would behave under the circumstances.
Every time a new policy is anounced in Iraq, it's always "wait wait wait" for results. The problem is that by every measure, it gets worse for us at all the turning points. The appropriate comparison isn't Malaysia and the British (which, btw, is a place where the British are no longer), it's Vietnam. The Iraqis can absorb unlimited casualties because they have the ideological fuel to keep the recruits coming.
It's almost sad to see the Generals and Defense officials on the news anymore. You can see that they realize how lame the claims of "slow progress" or "we're just starting to bite" are even as they speak them.
The entire project is lose-lose at this point. If Iraq magically stabilizes (no telling how that might happen, and trying to flesh out a realistic scenario makes one realize just how unrealistic the hope is), it will be under a pro-Iranian, likely rabidly anti-American government.
If Iraq does not stabilize, regional warfare that will likely destroy our only "allies" in the Arab states will become a near certainty, and there will continue to be American lives lost.
There's really just no remotely plausible scenario for an outcome that is good for the United States at this point. I say get the soldiers home so at least their lives aren't risked any longer in defense of an Iraqi government that includes embassy bombers and Iranian puppets.
Post by: Paddy on June 18, 2007, 06:44:27 AM
Quote
I have read much about the culture of the area and it seems to me the only way victory can be had is the most distasteful of scenarios: Iraq would have to be destroyed and then occupied and rebuilt. I don't believe we have the stomach for it.
Actually, there is another way, and it may be the only way. The country of 'Iraq' is an artificial construct encompassing at least three different cultures who don't want to live together. The Sunnis don't want to be governed by the Shia or vice-versa. And the Kurds don't want to be governed by either one. Each group needs their own sovereign country along with the right to self-rule. Iraq needs to be broken up; that is, IMO, the only possible way to pacify it.
Post by: The Rabbi on June 18, 2007, 07:27:14 AM
Quote
I have read much about the culture of the area and it seems to me the only way victory can be had is the most distasteful of scenarios: Iraq would have to be destroyed and then occupied and rebuilt. I don't believe we have the stomach for it.
Actually, there is another way, and it may be the only way. The country of 'Iraq' is an artificial construct encompassing at least three different cultures who don't want to live together. The Sunnis don't want to be governed by the Shia or vice-versa. And the Kurds don't want to be governed by either one. Each group needs their own sovereign country along with the right to self-rule. Iraq needs to be broken up; that is, IMO, the only possible way to pacify it. The "fall back" plan I saw in one book is to let the Kurds declare a Kurdistan. We are very popular there and in general that part of the country is doing fine. They will let us set a big base there and we can keep an eye on what happens in the south.
It wouldnt be my first choice and we would catch hell from the Turks but politically it could become the best option we have.
Post by: grampster on June 18, 2007, 09:23:51 AM
Regarding shootinstudent's comment that we did destroy Iraq: Far from it. Go back and look at pictures of post WWII Germany and Japan. Those countries were conquered and begged for peace. War is like revenge. It is a dish best served cold. We freed Europe and defeated Japan because we did not concern ourselves with collateral damage. In Iraq we have rules of engagement in comparison is, well, there is no comparison.
In hindsight, we should have toppled Saddam in '91. Unfortunately we stuck to the game plan that built the alliance. It should have been modified when it became obvious that Iraq was ready for defeat back then.
I think we better be prepared to wake up some morning soon and find out that we had an airstrike inside Iran to destroy the bases that are training fighters to insert into Iraq. Israel is NOT going to stand by and let Iran possess nuclear weapons.
On the other hand it might not be a bad idea to pull back and let Iraq collapse just to see what happens. It might keep Syria and Iran occupied enough that they slow down other mischief.
Post by: De Selby on June 18, 2007, 12:04:49 PM
Quote
In Iraq we have rules of engagement in comparison is, well, there is no comparison.
There most certainly is. No, we aren't carpet bombing like we did in Germany. But yes, Iraq is destroyed.
But the destruction of basic infrastructure and death toll are most certainly comparable. Pound for pound, Iraq has a death toll and an impact on infrastructure that is quite comparable what Germany suffered in world war II. It's a country of about 30 million that's suffered about 600,000 deaths, 2 million refugees, and whose infrastructure is now almost entirely defunct.
Quote
Israel is NOT going to stand by and let Iran possess nuclear weapons.
Not only is it going to, it doesn't really have a choice as long as the United States is aligning itself with Iran on the Iraq problem.
At this point, things are going so badly in Iraq that a nuke-program-ending strike on Iran becomes more fantasy than reality every day.
I supported the war back in 2003 and for a good solid year after. I still think there were good arguments in support of it; the problem is that they turned out to have been based on the wrong calculations. I have to admit now that it backfired.
Post by: Balog on June 18, 2007, 02:44:49 PM
I'm also (so far as I know) one of two people on this thread who've actually been to Iraq this time around. I think the fact that I served in the WoT and yet apparently have a foggier notion of what it's objectives are than Art and fistful do are puzzling. I was always told I was in Iraq to kill terrorists, and rebuild the local fighting forces so they could eventually take over killing terrorists for me.
The strategic definition of war is the political use of force to make your enemy conform to your will, whatever that may be. Since we have no defined enemy other than "people who are terrorists" I'm just a wee bit sceptical of how we are going to accomplish our goals. Of course, I apparently don't even properly understand our goals!
Really not trying to start something here; I have a great deal of respect for both Art and Fistful. I wasn't trying to "pretend" anything, and God help me but I'm a bit upset that I seem to be lumped in with all the blissninny hippy pricks who have spurious objections to the war in Iraq.
Post by: grampster on June 18, 2007, 03:10:34 PM
The fact that you have served in Iraq totally cancels out any observation that you would be "lumped in with all the blissninny hippy pricks who have spurious objections to the war in Iraq." Quite the contrary, sir. You, perhaps are the only one to have any credibility, and have a valid opinion worth contemplating when you express your confusion about how the mission is accomplished. That is if there is a mission that is able to be accomplished. Frankly, since we wrecked Saddam, his sons, and most of his tribe, I think we need to pull back, not pull out, seal the Syrian and Iranian borders and let the Iraqi's sort it out for themselves. We don't have a very good track record at border security, though. We can't even do it in our own country and most of us would help.
What you have to say would carry more weight than something I was fed by the media or a "Breck Girl" politician in a $5,000.00 suit.
Post by: The Rabbi on June 18, 2007, 03:17:35 PM
al Qaeda is a difficult enemy to define. It isnt a nation-state since it has no territory of its own. It doesnt really even have a very defined power structure. It has a system of loose alliances based on common interest. Thus Hamas, al Qaeda, abu Sayyaf, and a few other no-goodniks have alliances, share personnel, funding, resources, and goals. They are united mainly in their Islamic beliefs and in their desire to harm the West, especially the U.S.
Even though these groups are really NGOs, they depend in part on nation states to facillitate their projects. They need territory in, e.g. Afghanistan, to train. They need end-user certificates from e.g. Iran to procure weapons. They need passports and funding conduits.
The Bush Administration, much to its credit, recognized the 9/11 attacks as the opening salvo of a war. The Clinton Administration saw terrorist attacks as isolated events and thus "police issues." In a police issue, you gather evidence, track down suspects, and bring them to trial and punishment.
In a war you degrade the enemy's capacity to make war. The enemy needs men and materiel and communication and leadership. Bush has tried, with a lot of success btw, to deny those things, tracking complex financial transactions, freezing assets, shutting down fund raising operations, and jailing or killing the leadership. Bush has also, with less success, sought to pressure nation states not to allow themselves to be used by al-Qaeda and its related orgs.
This, in a nutshell, is the "war on terror." People serving in Iraq are part of it, but only a small part in one theater. People in the FBI tracking bank account activity are equally involved in the WoT, but in a different theater.
Post by: Gewehr98 on June 18, 2007, 03:45:35 PM
Here I thought my special government-paid vacation in the Green Zone was solely to give RileyMc something to bitch about on APS.
Post by: griz on June 19, 2007, 02:48:58 AM
Quote
In a war you degrade the enemy's capacity to make war. The enemy needs men and materiel and communication and leadership. Bush has tried, with a lot of success btw, to deny those things, tracking complex financial transactions, freezing assets, shutting down fund raising operations, and jailing or killing the leadership. Bush has also, with less success, sought to pressure nation states not to allow themselves to be used by al-Qaeda and its related orgs.
This, in a nutshell, is the "war on terror." People serving in Iraq are part of it, but only a small part in one theater. People in the FBI tracking bank account activity are equally involved in the WoT, but in a different theater.
This, in a nutshell, is the "war on terror." People serving in Iraq are part of it, but only a small part in one theater. People in the FBI tracking bank account activity are equally involved in the WoT, but in a different theater.
To me this brings up two questions that sum up the objections to our involvement over there.
1. Of the things you describe as the WOT, the main part our troops (thank you Balog) are doing is killing the leadership. So are our guys over there chasing the leaders of AQ or are they trying to stop Iraqis from killing each other? I hope you see the distinction. If our main objective is to defend ourselves from people there, the best way to do that is to leave. And again I ask this because it is much harder to get an unbiased real answer than a slanted point of view.
2. If we are unwilling to force "nation states not to allow themselves to be used by al-Qaeda and its related orgs", why are we bothering to fight the foot soldiers in the WOT? To use the war on drug analogy, it would be like aressting the addicts, but being careful not to offend or financially impact the cartel.
Post by: The Rabbi on June 19, 2007, 05:52:07 AM
Restoring Iraq to a stable, democratic country is a goal of US foreign policy. It should be obvious where that fits in with the WoT. So a side show is the attempt by the US to suppress the Iraqi insurgency. Part of that insurgency in fact is made up of foot soldiers for al Qaeda, Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians. Killing them off isnt a bad idea anytime.
The US is also going after the command and control structure there, trying to identify leadership. You will notice al Sadr is no longer in Iraq. Other leaders have been killed or captured.
As for as action in regard to nation states, you will also notice that Libya seems to have reformed itself to some degree and given up its nuclear program. That is a major success that Bush does not get credit for.
Post by: roo_ster on June 19, 2007, 07:03:53 AM
Remind me, how long was the US engaged in hostilities with the Barbary Pirates?
Post by: The Rabbi on June 19, 2007, 07:33:49 AM
Post by: Paddy on June 19, 2007, 07:48:40 AM
to other conflicts is apples v. oranges. In prior conflicts, the rules of engagement were not limited to political 'correctness' and prior authorization and there was an identifiable enemy (except of course in the case of Vietnam, which closely resembles this Iraq situation).
Post by: Phantom Warrior on June 19, 2007, 08:18:18 AM
Quote from: shootinstudent
No, we aren't carpet bombing like we did in Germany. But yes, Iraq is destroyed.
But the destruction of basic infrastructure and death toll are most certainly comparable. Pound for pound, Iraq has a death toll and an impact on infrastructure that is quite comparable what Germany suffered in world war II.
But the destruction of basic infrastructure and death toll are most certainly comparable. Pound for pound, Iraq has a death toll and an impact on infrastructure that is quite comparable what Germany suffered in world war II.
Okay. I'm not sure if you are implying that this is the fault of coalition forces or not. It's a little hard to tell. But you seem to be implying that.
Let's be clear on this. The majority of that destruction is because these people are busy VBIEDing (car bomb) the crap out of each other or shooting their neighbors execution style. In the time I've been here, we've killed relatively few people (all of whom were actively shooting at us) and destroyed a handful of (abandoned) houses that were being used as bunkers or hides to detonate IEDs from. Also, those people blowing oil pipelines and stuff. That's not us either.
I still can't quite determine what you are trying to say w/ that post. If you are implying that it is the fault of coalition forces that Iraq is destroyed I'm going to get very heated.
Quote from: griz
So are our guys over there chasing the leaders of AQ or are they trying to stop Iraqis from killing each other? I hope you see the distinction. If our main objective is to defend ourselves from people there, the best way to do that is to leave.
griz,
We are doing both. al-Qaeda is definitely a big target for us. But we are trying to stop the sectarian violence and targeting people like the Shia Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) militia. JAM is a local, as opposed to international, organization and really just wants to kill Sunnis and doesn't want us to get in the way. But since we are getting in the way, they are going after us too. One thing someone pointed out to me that really hit me was that Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs) are a *expletive deleted*it weapon, because they come from Iran, not an al-Qaida weapon. And believe me, EFPs are the big boogeyman for soldiers today. It takes a LOT of armor to stop one and most vehicles are vulnerable to them. Those thing will wreck a vehicle and kill soldiers in a big way.
Our battalion commander likes to compare our job to trying to break up a fight at the Rock Fabrique (a bar back in Germany). Which is what most of the upper military and civilian echelons like to say. I prefer to compare it to jumping into a fight between several angry drunks armed w/ knives and broken bottles. Even if you pull one or two of them out of the fight they are still going to keep fighting and no one has a problem stabbing you either.
To summarize, the Sunni and the Shia do NOT want to get along. They don't want to work together. They want to kill each other. That's why I believe that ultimately the solution lies with homogenizing the Iraqis. Whether that means the Shia eventually drive out the Sunnis or partitioning Iraq into sections. It's interesting to note that "Kurdistan", the northern Kurdish area of Iraq is doing well. They have a functioning government and are largely very peaceful. But that is because they are all Kurds, without the Sunni/Shia tensions. A good analogy might be Yugoslavia, which settled down once the hostile ethnic groups were separated into their own little countries, rather than being thrown together and given the opportunity to fight.
Quote from: The Rabbi
The U.S. had soldiers stationed in China for close to 100 years.
Yes, but were they doing patrols and getting blown the *expletive deleted*ck up (there's no other word when you see a HMMWV blown away down to the floorboards with the whole crew dead)? I think a continuing presence in Iraq is necessary and even a good idea, since it gives us easy access to much of the Middle East. But it needs to be along the lines of Germany or Japan. Not keeping one third of ALL of our Army Brigade Combat Teams (active AND reserve) stationed there with the soldiers going out, doing patrols, and getting killed every day.
Post by: Bogie on June 19, 2007, 10:37:40 AM
Personally, I'm leaning toward a bugout right now. Then after they get gnarsty again, and launch another attack on our soil, and they will do that, we go in and carpetbomb them until there's nothing left. They don't understand "nice." They do understand "carpet bomb." They just haven't seen it.
Post by: lupinus on June 19, 2007, 12:42:41 PM
The Kurds already have an area so they aren't an issue. But go to the leaders of the Shia and the leaders of the Suni tell them to sit down shut up draw some lines i nthe sand for each side to get, and if they don't we will lay the smack down on them like they have nver felt before and turn the country into a parking lot.
Once they have some lines drawn either A) Let them be three totaly seperate independant countries, or B) A loose republic of nations, maybe something similar to the origional American republic in that the central power was very limited and the states took care of msot everything for themselves. You have a Kurdish state, a Suni state, and a Shia state. We already basically have that now in that there is a Kurdish state, there just is the other half where the Shia and Suni have to live together and coexist.
Worked pretty good for Yugoslavia.
Post by: 280plus on June 19, 2007, 01:43:07 PM
Post by: griz on June 19, 2007, 03:42:23 PM
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 19, 2007, 03:53:27 PM
And Phantom Warrior hit the nail on the head. Thankfully the mission my unit has doesn't have us out there doing all the things his unit is doing. Our unit has been lucky, knock on wood, that we have had no major incidents with IED's or even SAF attacks. We have had a few close calls but no injuries from combat, and no major damage to vehicles.
Post by: Paddy on June 19, 2007, 04:10:08 PM
Quote
To counter Rabbi, al-Sadr is now back in Iraq and has been for a couple of weeks now.
Why is he still alive?? He would be an excellent use of a Hellfire missle.
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 19, 2007, 06:09:40 PM
Quote
To counter Rabbi, al-Sadr is now back in Iraq and has been for a couple of weeks now.
Why is he still alive?? He would be an excellent use of a Hellfire missle. Because he actually brings some stability to the situation. He is actually trying to get JAM to work with the GOI because he realizes the sooner that happens the sooner we are gone.
Post by: Ron on June 19, 2007, 07:28:21 PM
While it isn't flattering of the administration as you can imagine, PBS reporting on Iraq, I wouldn't call it a hit piece either.
I would call it a damn good synopsis of the situation from the beginning until present.
It is available online.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/view/
Post by: roo_ster on June 20, 2007, 04:48:42 AM
Post by: grampster on June 20, 2007, 10:12:42 AM
Wouldn't you just love it if for once, the media just reported stuff as it happens, good, bad or indifferent?
Post by: RevDisk on June 20, 2007, 03:39:56 PM
Why is he still alive?? He would be an excellent use of a Hellfire missle.
Only if your intention is very probably triggering a full scale civil war. Assassinating him would cause many unintended consequences. First would be that Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani would be pretty much obligated to side against the US.
The only two possible ways to stabilize Iraq are to either Balkanize Iraq into three nations or to be more brutal than Saddam or Tito.
Problem with the Balkanization is that it'd cause one, possibly two, additional wars. Turkey would invade Kurdistan, they already have and they will again. Actually, they're currently building up force levels along the border to crush the Turkish Kurds. Also to show that they can and will strike into Iraqi Kurdistan if things don't calm down. Funny how you don't see that kind of information on the news. The second would be yet another *expletive deleted*it-Sunni war. The oil is mainly in Kurdish and *expletive deleted*it areas. The Sunni aren't exactly going respond well to being left without a cut of the oil revenue.
Post by: Paddy on June 20, 2007, 05:53:00 PM
Quote
Why is he still alive?? He would be an excellent use of a Hellfire missle.
Only if your intention is very probably triggering a full scale civil war. Assassinating him would cause many unintended consequences. First would be that Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani would be pretty much obligated to side against the US.
Bullcrap. It's that kind of appeasement thinking that prolongs the conflict. To 'win' you must be violent, brutal and unpredictable.
Only if your intention is very probably triggering a full scale civil war. Assassinating him would cause many unintended consequences. First would be that Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani would be pretty much obligated to side against the US.
Post by: De Selby on June 20, 2007, 07:38:06 PM
Quote
Why is he still alive?? He would be an excellent use of a Hellfire missle.
Only if your intention is very probably triggering a full scale civil war. Assassinating him would cause many unintended consequences. First would be that Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani would be pretty much obligated to side against the US.
Bullcrap. It's that kind of appeasement thinking that prolongs the conflict. To 'win' you must be violent, brutal and unpredictable. Only if your intention is very probably triggering a full scale civil war. Assassinating him would cause many unintended consequences. First would be that Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani would be pretty much obligated to side against the US.
Think about this: are the most stable governments in the world those that are the most violent, brutal, and unpredictable?
If you want people to have confidence in a government and accept it, you have to be as stable, predictable, and unintrusive as possible.
An occupation government that tries to kill the resistence out of people will quickly find itself outbrutalized and facing an enemy with unlimited numbers of recruits.
Post by: Paddy on June 20, 2007, 07:54:02 PM
Quote
An occupation government that tries to kill the resistence out of people will quickly find itself outbrutalized and facing an enemy with unlimited numbers of recruits.
That is a description of the current situation which arose out of limited and 'politically correct' so-called 'warfare'. We are most certainly outbrutalized and should our young men (and women) step out of line they are prosecuted by their own government. This (Iraq) is no 'war', it is simply a ruse, or a pastime for the American government headed up by a complete fool. The radical Islamic world already has an unlimited number of recruits, ready, able and wiling to die. You seem to think that a 'genteel' approach will win a war. You are naive to the 'nth' degree young man.
Post by: jnojr on June 20, 2007, 07:56:42 PM
Let's quit squandering lives and money in this endless black hole cesspool.
+1
Iraq is going to dissolve into civil war the day after we leave, whether that's tomorrow or ten years from now. Let's let them get to it. The illusion of "peace in the Middle East" isn't worth a single American life or dollar.
Post by: De Selby on June 20, 2007, 07:59:13 PM
Quote
An occupation government that tries to kill the resistence out of people will quickly find itself outbrutalized and facing an enemy with unlimited numbers of recruits.
That is a description of the current situation which arose out of limited and 'politically correct' so-called 'warfare'. We are most certainly outbrutalized and should our young men (and women) step out of line they are prosecuted by their own government. This (Iraq) is no 'war', it is simply a ruse, or a pastime for the American government headed up by a complete fool. The radical Islamic world already has an unlimited number of recruits, ready, able and wiling to die. You seem to think that a 'genteel' approach will win a war. You are naive to the 'nth' degree young man. So what's your plan? Kill everyone with a name and suddenly the Iraqis will what....drop their arms and accept whatever's coming to them?
Try this: flesh out a scenario with a few details on how the ultra violence is going to get the Iraqis to stop shooting at Americans. That should illustrate nicely for you that the real fantasy is "we can just kill them into submission."
Out-killing popular opposition as a strategy ended with worldwide monarchies. It does not and never has worked in the post-colonial world.
Post by: Paddy on June 20, 2007, 08:01:52 PM
Quote
So what's your plan? Kill everyone with a name and suddenly the Iraqis will what....drop their arms and accept whatever's coming to them?
My 'plan' (if I were calling the shots) is to immediately withdraw all troops and assets of the United States from the entire region. There is no U.S. national security interest served by the continuing occupation of Iraq.
Post by: RevDisk on June 21, 2007, 12:26:20 PM
Quote
Why is he still alive?? He would be an excellent use of a Hellfire missle.
Only if your intention is very probably triggering a full scale civil war. Assassinating him would cause many unintended consequences. First would be that Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani would be pretty much obligated to side against the US.
Bullcrap. It's that kind of appeasement thinking that prolongs the conflict. To 'win' you must be violent, brutal and unpredictable. Only if your intention is very probably triggering a full scale civil war. Assassinating him would cause many unintended consequences. First would be that Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani would be pretty much obligated to side against the US.
Yes, foreign occupation troops killing local religious leaders historically never causes the indigenous folks to get upset. Sigh.
If we were occupying Iraq with the purpose of annexation of its resources, I'd agree that massacring the population would work. Except the current official reason for our occupation is that we're bringing democracy to Iraq.