How I Lost the War in Iraq

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by SkyRock
No, Holden, I am saying to debate it as a strategy is irrelevant because we both and everyone else knows it is a part of military strategy.  In other words, if we both agree that trying to sway an opponents civil population and political climate is a military strategy, then it is irrelevant to argue it.  It is settled.

Well what's not settled is the fact that the Democrat leadership does not see this.  IMHO with all their talk of pull out it and failure it gives fuel to our enemies.  Everytime a senator calls our soldiers "nazis" and says we run "gulags" all to further his politics it fuels our enemies.

It's far from settled, the left in this country does not understand this and under the guise of free speech continues to want to lose a war for political gain.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by SkyRock
As far as you making a strong argument, the idea of putting a democracy in IRAQ by force is about the most unintelligent strategy yet to come from this country!  

Time will tell but..........

A clear majority have voted in the two prior elections and it is a very good bet a clear majority will vote in the next one.

That by definition is democracy.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Well what's not settled is the fact that the Democrat leadership does not see this.  IMHO with all their talk of pull out it and failure it gives fuel to our enemies.  Everytime a senator calls our soldiers "nazis" and says we run "gulags" all to further his politics it fuels our enemies.

It's far from settled, the left in this country does not understand this and under the guise of free speech continues to want to lose a war for political gain.

Well gun again i will not indulge in the debate of rights and lefts, I will, however, debate the strategy of originally going into IRAQ and how we intend to get out!  When preparing a military plan to invade a country, the leadership must always include in the plan strategies to fight the entire battle, which includes the enemies within ones own country!  The best way to defeat the internal opposition is to be as honest to them up-front about what is going to happen in the upcoming war.  This was the first military defeat in IRAQ.  The fact that the intel was bad or misleading was the first major defeat in the IRAQ war for the United States.

[Dago]

See Rule #4

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Dago
See Rule #4

Wow!  Not much of a debator I see!  Let me be more clear on the definition of defeat.  If the country was mislead, which is still in question, then it would have been the first defeat of the strategic plan for victory.  As it is now, many in our own country feel as though they were mislead and that has turned into an internal distraction.  One could argue that those that feel mislead should shut their mouths for the sake of the countries efforts in IRAQ, but that wouldn't be a democracy.  The fact that there is even a question about the intel that led to the war in IRAQ suggests a pre-war strategy that was flawed.  
I am suggesting to you that maybe the IRAQ people may never be able to defend their own democracy without the precense of US soldiers.  If that turns out to be true,  then one would eventually have to decide on how to get out!  I believe that many of the IRAQI's want democracy.  I'm not sold on the fact that they are capable of instituting long term democratic processes in IRAQ though.  The tribal instincts in the region lend most scholars to believe that corruption and in-fighting would prevent a true democracy from ever flourishing in IRAQ!

[Holden McGroin]

Skyrock, did you read about NVA General Vo Nguyen Giap?

What do you say about what the top General of the NVA reasons for Tet?

You can either agree with me or be wrong.

[Dago]

Then why do you keep babbling about defeat?

First: about the "mislead" question, I don't think we were mislead intentionally but like many I do believe the intelligence was flawed.  That does not spell defeat, a word you  just seem to love to use as it casts a negative light on the administration and the efforts of our military.

Second: I do not have a clue if Iraq will be able to maintain a democracy in the future, religious sect differances and the clan nature of the Arab society pose significant issues just as it does in Afghanistan.

But, it has worked in other Arab countries and is possible in Iraq.  Regardless, we have not been defeated, and your attempting to use that word in the wrong context makes you look foolish.

dago

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by SkyRock
Well gun again i will not indulge in the debate of rights and lefts, I will, however, debate the strategy of originally going into IRAQ and how we intend to get out!  When preparing a military plan to invade a country, the leadership must always include in the plan strategies to fight the entire battle, which includes the enemies within ones own country!  The best way to defeat the internal opposition is to be as honest to them up-front about what is going to happen in the upcoming war.  This was the first military defeat in IRAQ.  The fact that the intel was bad or misleading was the first major defeat in the IRAQ war for the United States.

It is not a military defeat if it is not fought by the military, it's a POLITICAL defeat and one of many handed out by both sides of the isle.....you know the left and right wich you don't want to talk about....they are the ones who fight the political fights......not the military.

One can assume we were mislead but the proof is not there, then all you are left with is an assumption.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Skyrock, did you read about NVA General Vo Nguyen Giap?

What do you say about what the top General of the NVA reasons for Tet?

You can either agree with me or be wrong.

I am/was already aware of that read and have read extensively about the entire war especially the 68 offensives.  My Uncle was killed near Hue in May of that year, so I had a particular interest in the Tet and following offensives.  In my opinion, VietNam was a bad decision from the start!  In no way shape or form was the country of VietNam and all her citizens ever worth 50,000 americans.  
     Generally, we as a country fare far better when our might is brought about upon those who attack us first.  Seems that history has proven that the american public generally does not last long behind any war that is fought  as a preventative measure ie.. Korea, VietNam, and possibly IRAQ!(especially if the death tolls start to rise)  For some reason Americans eventually fall placid and revert back to the old "only go to war if we have to" feeling about war!  So, again, I make the statement that the US must be very wise when approaching these type of situations, such as the new threats we face and what regions to neutralize, as a world power.  It is never easy being the big dog!

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
It is not a military defeat if it is not fought by the military, it's a POLITICAL defeat and one of many handed out by both sides of the isle.....you know the left and right wich you don't want to talk about....they are the ones who fight the political fights......not the military.

One can assume we were mislead but the proof is not there, then all you are left with is an assumption.

Not once have I said that the military lost or was defeated.  Let me make it more clear, it was a more of a defeat for the american people!  The truth is ultimately what will decide how we look at IRAQ!

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by SkyRock
This was the first military defeat in IRAQ.  

Originally posted by SkyRock
Not once have I said that the military lost or was defeated. Let me make it more clear, it was a more of a defeat for the american people! The truth is ultimately what will decide how we look at IRAQ!  

maybe you should read what you type??????  Either way I think you either:
 A. don't beleive the BS you are trying to sell
or
B. Are completly in the dark about American politics

This entire thread was started as sarcasm to the charge that democrats are trying to lose the war in Iraq for political gain by their cut and run speech as of late.  Maybe you havn't read the first 4 pages and just chimed in when you felt it appropriate but that is the topic of conversation.  

This defeat that you say you never said but did say a few posts up and then rephrase that it was a defeat for the American people is being CAUSED by American people for political gain reguardless of the costs.  You can spout proofless statments about being misslead but it's simply baseless and without merit.  The "defeat-speech" is provable and clearly documented.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by SkyRock
cut and run????????  We got wipped by the war of attrition bro!  I don't know how old you are but you can read the history!

Originally posted by SkyRock
Not once have I said that the military lost or was defeated.

Usually, when one gets "whipped by the war of attrition" one suffers a military defeat.

Your debating skills need some polishing.

[Casca]

Originally posted by SkyRock
Many countries are unable to have a Democracy based on their culture, views of religion, and tribal loyalties.    I ask this question "Do you believe that the IRAQI people are capable of having a truly democratic society without an eventual civil war?"  That is without any american troops there.   If your answer is yes, then we found a winner in the clueless department.  If your answer is no, then how long should american troops stay in IRAQ?

It's possible for the Iraqi people to have a democratic society I think.  The average Iraqi probably wants pretty much the same things that you and I want.  The lights to work, a future for the kids, being able to go to the market without being shredded by some loony bomber, the usual.  The issue is getting political power into the hands of the average Iraqi.  I think individuals that conclude that people are rendered incapable of or disqualified from democracy by religeon, culture or tribal affiliation are mistaken.  I'd probably say "clueless" but I'm trying to be more circumspect with indiscrimate use of perjoratives this year.  For an intresting piece on that very topic you might consult a recent Hitchens article in Slate here.  He's a recovering Trotskyite but I consider his take on the situation to be fairly despositve.

As far as how long american troops might need to be there in some number irrespective of outcome, one might ask the same of Korea.  What's it been 55 years or so?  The answer is as long as it takes.

If we fail to conclude the work that has been started here and allow the possibility of an Al Queda state in the region we will be required to do it over again with a much higher expenditure of blood and treasure.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
maybe you should read what you type??????  Either way I think you either:
 A. don't beleive the BS you are trying to sell
or
B. Are completly in the dark about American politics

This entire thread was started as sarcasm to the charge that democrats are trying to lose the war in Iraq for political gain by their cut and run speech as of late.  Maybe you havn't read the first 4 pages and just chimed in when you felt it appropriate but that is the topic of conversation.  

This defeat that you say you never said but did say a few posts up and then rephrase that it was a defeat for the American people is being CAUSED by American people for political gain reguardless of the costs.  You can spout proofless statments about being misslead but it's simply baseless and without merit.  The "defeat-speech" is provable and clearly documented.

I stand corrected!  I shall state here further that I do not intend to claim the foot soldier lost the war!

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Usually, when one gets "whipped by the war of attrition" one suffers a military defeat.

Your debating skills need some polishing.

Again my words were poorly chosen!  I state here further that I do not intend to claim the foot soldier lost the war!