How I Lost the War in Iraq

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Casca
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.

TY Casca foir your choice of "choice" words!
Al-Queda state in region???(WMD's?)  I am of the opinion that every dollar spent and every ounce of blood spilled in that country would have been better put to use securing our homeland!

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by SkyRock
TY Casca foir your choice of "choice" words!
Al-Queda state in region???(WMD's?)  I am of the opinion that every dollar spent and every ounce of blood spilled in that country would have been better put to use securing our homeland!

eventually they will be on our doorstep using our very own freedoms against us.  Their goal is an islamic world starting with an islamic state in Iraq to feed over into the borders of other countrys in the region.  Then expanding to Europe and other continents as well.

To veiw the war in Iraq as just a single conflict and not a stepping stone to a much greater struggle is a very simplistic and narrow minded view.  Our enemies view this as a 100 year war of attrition in wich they have allready fought the first 25 years.

[Iceman24]

heat + sand = glass
we have a bunch of nukes lying around don't we ?
I want the US to do a scientific experiment to see how many nukes it will take to turn that whole region into a sheet of glass only took 2 to get the Japanease inline and they weren't even very big compared to the new stuff we have... We keep developing all these new weapon systems and bombs, lets use this stuff, no sense in making it if we won't use it.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Senator McCarth
Why gollly be jeebuzz! I said the same exact dang thing fifty odd years ago!

"eventually they will be on our doorstep using our very own freedoms against us. Their goal is  communist enslavement starting with a communist takeover in Korea and Vietnam to feed over into the borders of other countrys in the region. Then expanding to Europe and other continents as well.
 To veiw the war ....as just a single conflict and not a stepping stone to a much greater struggle is a very simplistic and narrow minded view. Our enemies view this as a 100 year war of attrition in wich they have allready fought the first 25 years."


 You make me and the rest of the Republican party proud gunslinger!  If you should ever desire to do more create postings on the web please contact the party chairman.   We could use more proper Americans such as you in gathering all of the names of those who don't think like us. And we could sure use help in preparing more camps!

 Sincerely,

 Sen Joe McCarthy

Hey nice shades account, sorry to dissapoint but I'm not a republican.

"If our intended goal in this age is the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet and if we expect to establish its state predominantly - according to how it appeals to us - in the heart of the Islamic world, then your efforts and sacrifices, God permitting, are a large step directly towards that goal.

So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals:

The first stage: expel the Americans from Iraq.

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will ... jump at taking power.

There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

My raising this idea - I don't claim that it's infallible - is only to stress something extremely important. And it is that the mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us. Instead, their ongoing mission is to establish an Islamic State, and defend it, and for every generation to hand over the banner to the one after it until the Hour of Resurrection.

Some people really have no vision.

Want to read the rest google “Letter from Zawahri to Zarqawi”

[lazs2]

skyrock... it is obvious that you have no idea what happened in vietnam with the possible exception of knowing what happened up till 1968.

leave politics out of it... fine with me.   the war was won by about 1970 by any means that you wish to gauge a war.

The South lost the war after we pulled out because we reniged on our promise for support.   that could easily be considered a political thing tho.

Abrams won the vietnam war by using indiginous forces to form milita and local police and to go after supply routes and he never cared about body counts... only about destruction of supplies and supply lines and he realized that indiginous peoples could ferret out the enemy better than we could..

Iraq was is won right now too using... Abrams tactics...  we are using them as we speak...  we are training and supplying...  And, just like vietnam... victory is ours (our politicians) to throw away.  

None of this has anything to do with the little bighorn in any way... your clarification just shows that you know less about either the little bighorn or vietnam or the iraq war than we had at first suspected.

It may or may not be a good thing to pick Iraq for our fight but... it seems central and we had a good enough reason and... it is good training for the troops and and and...   except for cost... it is pretty cheap... we lost very few soldiers for the amount of experiance we are getting.

lazs

[Sakai]

Originally posted by NUKE
you guys are funny. You are looking at the Iraq war as a failure, when it's a complete success and is a world changing historical event.

20 years from now, you guys are gonna be great examples of how wrong and ignorant people can be.

And Viet nam was winnable and the Liberals lost that one right?

Sakai

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
eventually they will be on our doorstep using our very own freedoms against us.  Their goal is an islamic world starting with an islamic state in Iraq to feed over into the borders of other countrys in the region.  Then expanding to Europe and other continents as well.

To veiw the war in Iraq as just a single conflict and not a stepping stone to a much greater struggle is a very simplistic and narrow minded view.  Our enemies view this as a 100 year war of attrition in wich they have allready fought the first 25 years.

Gunslingr it has been going on much longer than that fella!

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by SkyRock
Gunslingr it has been going on much longer than that fella!

I'm just talking about RECENT history IE the last couple decades.  Islamic fundamentalist want to take over the world.

TO me this is no different than German Circa 1935 or so, if we had the benifit of hindsight we could have stopped it then but didn't.  This time is different.  We have a clearly defined enemy that is opposed to freedom and tolerence.  They are religious fascists of the worst kind.

What kills me is when I hear the comparison of insurgants and terrorists in Iraq to freedom fighters.  They are nothing of the sort because they do not fight for freedom they fight for oppression.  They fight for tyrany, NOT freedom.  I'd like to quote the works of somone else:

 There is the perception that fanatical insurgents bubble like oil from the Iraqi sands. Yet, having traveled in Iraq for nearly half a year, I have seen little real desert, and true fanatics are rare.

In an effort to be culturally sensitive and almost compulsively polite, we've mangled the meanings of words like "martyr" and "suicide" to such a degree that we're using them to label mass murderers. While American and foreign media collectively increase the suffering of babes through their current fashion of cynicism, others seem to have a case of "parents' guilt." Unable to give the Iraqi suffering the undivided and ameliorative attention it requires, reporters instead rush at any sign of distress and hyper-focus on the negative. In the process, they create more problems than originally existed, shoveling out body counts and masquerading them as reports
...
The enemy's operating practices for overcoming delivery and timing problems speak volumes about their predatory nature. They use human bomb delivery devices—the mislabeled "suicide bombers"—who become organic elements of primitive weapon systems. They call these temp workers "martyrs," in a shameless exploitation of the naïveté and narcissism of certain young men. The "martyrs" allow themselves to be used as targeting and acquisition systems. More than just "allowing" they actually see the act of mass murder as the fulfillment of a glorious plan.

Particularly among fanatics, there seems to be an intentional misappropriation of meaning in the liberal misapplication of labeling words. Let's start with the BIG ones: suicide bombers and martyrs. Suicide is a term that should evoke empathy, if not sympathy, for a lonely and despairing act. A distressed soul, harboring a crushing, agonizing lebensmude, weary of the strain of a terrestrial existence, perhaps seeking mere relief, or just an end to psychic pain, may be contemplating suicide. If this person straps a bomb to his or her chest and walks out into the solitude of the desert and detonates, they would then be properly called a "suicide bomber." But when the media reports every day on "suicide bombers," they are talking about different people.

A fanatic who straps a bomb to his chest and walks into a market crowded with women and children, then detonates a bomb that is sometimes laced with rat poison to hamper blood coagulation, is properly called a "mass murderer." There is nothing good to say about mass murderers, nor is there anything good to say about a person who encourages these murders. Calling these human bomb delivery devices "suicide bombers" is simply incorrect. They are murderers. A person or media source defending or explaining away the actions of the murderers supports them. There is no wiggle room.

Calling homicide bombers martyrs is a language offense; words are every bit as powerful as bombs, often more so. Calling murderers "martyrs" is like calling a man "customer" because he stood in line before gunning down a store clerk. There's no need to whisper. I hear the bombs every single day. Not some days, but every day. We're talking about criminals who actually volunteer and plan to deliberately murder and maim innocent people. What reservoir of feelings or sensibilities do we fear to assault by simply calling it so? When murderers describe themselves as "martyrs" it should sound to sensible ears like a rapist saying, "she was asking for it." In other words, like the empty rationalizations of a depraved criminal.

The word martyr is derived from the word "to witness." It is used to describe a person who is killed because of a belief or principle. Given the choice to recant, martyrs chose instead to face their murderers and stand in witness to their beliefs. True martyrs do not kill themselves, but stand their ground and fight in the face of death to demonstrate the power of their convictions, sometimes dying as a result, but preferably surviving.

The only martyrs I know about in Iraq are the fathers and brothers who see a better future coming, and so they act on their beliefs and assemble outside police stations whenever recruitment notices are posted. They line up in ever increasing numbers, knowing that insurgents can also read these notices. The men stand in longer and longer lines, making ever bigger targets of themselves. Some volunteer to to earn a living. This, too, is honorable. But others take these risks because they believe that a better future is possible only if Iraqi men of principle stand up for their own values, for their country, for their families. These are the true martyrs, the true heroes of Iraq and of Islam. I meet these martyrs frequently. They are brave men, worthy of respect.
...
In Mosul, the enemy has two main faces: The Former Regime Elements (FRE), and the extremists. The extremists here in Mosul can be divided into five groups—more or less—one of which would be the local chapter claiming affiliation with the so-called Al-Qaeda gang.

The goals of the FRE and the extremist gangs are at stunning variance. In fact, they mostly hate each other, often kill one another, and work together only as needed. If the Coalition and new Iraqi government were not here, conveniently located as a central target, the FRE and other terrorists would almost certainly be at war with each other.

The main goal of the FRE is simple: under the former regime, they were in charge. They want to be in charge again. In Saddam Hussein's regime, the Cynic's Golden Rule—"He who has the gold, makes the rules"—worked both ways: "He who makes the rules gets all the gold." The FRE bandits made the rules and controlled the gold. They have an understandable nostalgia for the good old days. They liked being in charge. They despise the prospect of people they once persecuted, such as the Kurds, suddenly acquiring any voice whatsoever. It’s not as if the FRE are totally disenfranchised, but more that they are no longer in complete control.

Whether or not someone might agree with the FRE, there is little dispute that these people have rational goals. Yet rational does not imply tenable in a newly democratic Iraq. This situation is not burdened with nagging grey areas where battle-scarred former combatants can work to some diplomatic compromise. This is an either/or situation. If the new democratic system takes hold, mathematics dictates that the FRE are not going to be in charge; they are outnumbered two to one. The FRE are Sunni Ba'athists while the majority of Iraq is Shia. The FRE is trying to destabilize the new government while simultaneously leveraging their position. Their primary strategy for both is to use violence against government officials and the civilians who elect them.

The FRE—being essentially rational but also essentially brutal—are simple to understand. They are serious, often deadly, but are not fanatical in the degree of their personal commitment to the cause. If they die, they will not regain control. It's a fact here on the Iraqi battleground—though seldom mentioned—that the majority of FRE insurgents are climate-sensitive. They almost never attack when it's cold, raining or even muddy. As a rule, if conditions are such that the Little League baseball game back home would be canceled due to inclement weather, these FRE insurgents will stay home and wait for the skies to clear.

Of the two groups, the more intractable and irrational enemy wraps their rebellion in a flag of fundamentalist fervor. Although the press routinely lumps all of these similar groups under the banner "Al-Qaeda" (whatever that really is) there are actually five main extremist groups operating in Mosul. They have common ground. Some members seek fulfillment in apocalyptic visions of a world at war, wherein everybody except them—or even including them—dies. In other cases they see the war shaping a new world, one that is entirely Islamic. The word "extremist" is not an overstatement for them.

These extremists are irrational, dangerous, often highly emotional, and cannot be trusted with large weapons. Every day, they kill innocent people in Iraq. The FRE and most of the Iraqis tend to hate the extremists, realizing that if the Coalition were to leave, they would face the full wrath of these fanatics alone.
-Michael Yon

[Mr No Name]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'm just talking about RECENT history IE the last couple decades.  Islamic fundamentalist want to take over the world.

TO me this is no different than German Circa 1935 or so, if we had the benifit of hindsight we could have stopped it then but didn't.  This time is different.  We have a clearly defined enemy that is opposed to freedom and tolerence.  They are religious fascists of the worst kind.

What kills me is when I hear the comparison of insurgants and terrorists in Iraq to freedom fighters.  They are nothing of the sort because they do not fight for freedom they fight for oppression.  They fight for tyrany, NOT freedom.  I'd like to quote the works of somone else:

Dead on target sir!  BTW the VAST majority of insurgents in Iraq are NOT Iraqis!  They are middle eastern border jumpers recruited in hostile countries and make their way across the Iraqi border illegally with the help of smugglers and the Syrians.

This war is a success except the media is determined to spin it into a negative. 2100 + Lives is a dear price to pay, but you better believe their count has been MUCH higher, a dictator has been toppled and people are voting in free elections.  Interesting that the Sunnis who opposed the elections fiercely turned out to vote in great numbers as well as the Kurds who Saddam gassed (with weapons he never posessed, right?)

As for WMDs that was never as important for me from the beginning as getting that SOB Saddam.  Had Bush Sr. said "F*** the UN"and went in and took that SOB out then we wouldnt have had to do it now.  The WMDs are (in my opinion) probably stored somewhere in the vast deserts of Iraq, Iran or inside Syria.  A criminal like Saddam who had posessed Gas weapons and USED them before the 1st gulf war in Iran and AFTER the 1st gulf war against Kurdish Iraqis will have a stash somewhere, whatever he had, he proved that he had the will to USE THEM.

Good Riddance Saddam! Sometimes you have to have the b***s to step up and do an ugly job... that's what we did and are continuing to do today so that no-one has to lose a city or cities to a nuclear armed Saddam 10 years from now.

BTW, I am not a Bush fan at all, this just happens to be the ONE thing I agree with him about.  Maybe next election the Republican party will put a REAL republican on the ballot instead of "Pretenders To The Throne"

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Mr No Name
Dead on target sir!  BTW the VAST majority of insurgents in Iraq are NOT Iraqis!  

Well, not entirely.  The vast majority of the suicide bombers might be.  All the deaths attributed to the Shi-ite police death squads seeking retribution against the Sunnis have to be counted as insurgent violence as well and all of that is indigenous as is Kurdish retribution, etc.  

Depends on what one sees the violence as.  If you're counting only some acts, say the acts of foreigners, yes.  But the violence in Iraq overall is far more complicated than the sound bytes coming out of the White House indicate.

We caved into all the demands of Al sadr's and guess what:  his guys are now murdering with impunity.

Sakai

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Eagler
Iraq was/is the right war, at the right place, at the right time

it is a failure why? that it's borders are easier to cross than our sw border and that every Abu, Ayman or muja-wannabe who has a suicide wish to "kill the infidels" can easily cross them and fullfil their wish?

Iraq is going fine, we just need to move the battle to the borders and the center of the country would stablize - maybe into the counties which are supplying the cheekboness and their weapons. Can you say Iran? Syria?

so sorry this isn't just another 60 minute sitcom west wing war. Some things take time and the fortitude to see them through.

Well, that's a nice sentiment but no one in the world thinks we have enough troops to do what you're asking.  You think merely smoking a nation or two with air power would make us safer from the orphans raised in hate schools by fruitcakes?

I am skeptical.  

Sakai

[lazs2]

saki... we did win in vietnam.  we were pulling out.   the South lost the war after we had won it because we reniged on our promise to supply them after we left.  

It is much like korea in that respect.   we won in korea and we let the south continue to hold their part of the country by our reduced presence and a lot of cash and supplies.  

That is how Iraq should go... it can go either like vietnam or like korea.   We are now using Abrams tactics in Iraq so it should go well...  

We may not be able to tell the bad guys from the good in these countries (korea, vietnam, iraq) but the insurgent police and militia forces can...  once the lines are drawn... be they original borders or a new one... the locals know who doesn't fit in and they can deal with him.   There will probly allways be suicide bombers till radical islam is wiped out as a political force...

Everyone seems to think that seperation of religion and state is such a good thing for the U.S. but gives a pass to radical islam... hard to understand that thinking really.... like radical feminists asking for us to leave those nice radical muslim countries alone...

Oh well... politics makes strange bedfellows on both sides of the left and right I suppose.

lazs

[Sakai]

Originally posted by lazs2
saki... we did win in vietnam.  we were pulling out.   the South lost the war after we had won it because we reniged on our promise to supply them after we left.  

That is how Iraq should go... it can go either like vietnam or like korea.   We are now using Abrams tactics in Iraq so it should go well...  

Well . . .

I think if we had somne defined goals and could pull back and let the Iraqi govt. take over, sure.

There was no military win in Viet Nam or Korea (often seen as a draw, the communists have always portrayed it as a victory--they're still around to say it) and no way to win politically either.  In fact, if the stated goal, to stop the spread of communism, is accurate, it was a loss.  I'd be curious to see if you'd ever read Hal Moore's book and what you thought of his points at the end about the war generally?

Also, I'd be curious as to how the various elections and coups in Viet Nam which were fostered by the US to create a Southern State in opposition to unification (the 1956 accords?) informed your opinions?

There is no way to win a military victory in Iraq.  You're pointing to a political and dilpomatic victory, I'd agree:

that's what we want.  

Sakai

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here. Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta. Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power…

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

[Silat]

It wasnt the media it was the lies of the administration that lost the war.It was the administration tying the hands of the military.
Going to war on lies always comes back to haunt you..

[Skuzzy]

Just a comment, but I do not see how anyone could trust the media anymore than they could trust the government.