How I Lost the War in Iraq

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by SkyRock
Lazs consider Custer in the valley of the little bighorn, troops down to nothing per man,  ultimately the sentence of death, it sucked to be a trooper there, it's very easy to say that some politician didn't provide for that soldier by ensuring that he at least had enough ammunition to kill any who tried to kill him.  The sad fact about  war is that  politics generally is the reason for war and logical human thinking is the victim!

  That was a joke right?
Cause about the only connection you can make between Custers last stand and Nam is that  Custers last stand was a battle of attrition.

About the only thing that would have been accomplished if they had more ammo is in providing the indians with more ammo after the battle was over

[lazs2]

custer?  custer lost on tactics and firepower and manpower.... His men died with lots of ammo.. It was a tactical and intel blunder of the highest order..

To compare the little bighorn to the vietnam war is beyond silly..

To compare the vietnam war under Abrams to the iraq situation is prudent.

skyrock... you really need to read some books on the vietnam war that don't stop or, gloss over what happened after 1969..   I would suggest "A Better War" by Sorrley who is much more qualified to talk about it that we are.

If we abondon the iraqi's to the outside terrorists and muslim extremists... we will be repeating history... throwing away the victory and selling the iraqi people down the river.   We need to be building their police and military and withdrawing troops while supplying the iraqui's with weapons and training.

We promised all that to the vietnamese and we sold em down the river because of politicians who were afraid of the same kind of no patience dolts who would compare these wars with..... with... the friggin little bighorn!

lazs

[Gunslinger]

See Rule #4

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by WMLute
Actually, your total lack of understanding on what happened in Vietnam surprised me as well SkyRock.  Just out of total curiousity, what exactly is your opinion based on?  A teacher?  A book maybe?  Some movie?  Please, enlighten me.  It's just unreal how off base you are on this.

Seriously.  No flame intended.

Actually, my only statement was that vietnam turned into a war of attrition.(always bad for the soldier and usually the product of politics)  I never said who was at fault, or that we didnt win every battle, just simply that it ended up being a meat grinder and very frustrating to those who were serving over there.  The comment was in response to someone saying that if we would have stayed, there would have been success.  I'm not even saying that isn't true!  Just simply stating that many "small" "regional" wars end up the same way!  Which is why a powerful country like the US has to be very selective where we send troops.  Lebanon, Somalia, vietnam, Korea, there is a long list of conflicts that turned into unwinnable bloodbaths for whatever the reason!  Most who have responded to my comments have drug the debate into "my cluelessness" or "lack of understanding" of the war in vietnam.  I understand very well what happened in Vietnam as I am well read on the subject, not to mention the personal involvment my family had to deal with!  Turning a countries people against a war is called military tactics.  It was a tactic we used very well against Germany in WWII.  We also use those same tactics in our military today.  We drop leaflets, use radio, whatever it takes to help our cause.  The north used the same tactics to "bleed" the US into withdrawl.   Saying that the media lost the war is simple politics and is irrelevant!  That is saying that Americans are helpless little sheep that can't judge a situation and come to a conclusion.  After it was all said and done the war in Vietnam cost the US over 50,000 dead and economically burdened and generationally divided.  The divide still exists to this day as witnessed by the responses on this board!

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Thank god, NUKE.  I have been waiting for some guidence, (SP?).  This war was based on the pretext of Saddams possession of and intent to use WMD's on the USA.  Those WMD's were never found and the pre-war intelligence was found to be faulty if not outright lies.  Therefore, the war is now being fought for what reason?  

In Oct 2002, the US Congress passes a law giving the President authority to take action in Iraq.

Several reasons other than WMD's are listed.  Saddam killing his own citizenry, Firing on coalition aircraft patroling no-fly zones, Kuwait war booty not being returned to Kuwait, and information and repatriation of Kuwait war prisoners are listed.

Those are the legislatively listed reasons.  Along with that is the thought that a working democracy run by Muslims in the heart of Islam could by advantagous.

And Skyrock,  follow this link to information about NVA General Vo Nguyen Giap who planned, commanded, and later wrote about Tet and his reasoning behind the offensive.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by SkyRock
.  The north used the same tactics to "bleed" the US into withdrawl.   Saying that the media lost the war is simple politics and is irrelevant!  That is saying that Americans are helpless little sheep that can't judge a situation and come to a conclusion.  After it was all said and done the war in Vietnam cost the US over 50,000 dead and economically burdened and generationally divided.  The divide still exists to this day as witnessed by the responses on this board!

and you don't think the North USED "Politics" as a strategy to sway the American Public and thus the American law makers against the war?  You are saying it is Irrelevent?  That is why you are clueless.  

Involvment in American politics is our enemy's version of "leaflets" because we have the right of free speech in this country.  Our enemies see this and use it to their strategic advantage when ever they can.  If you don't beleive me look at holden's link.  It will open your eyes and mind.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by lazs2
custer?  custer lost on tactics and firepower and manpower.... His men died with lots of ammo.. It was a tactical and intel blunder of the highest order..

To compare the little bighorn to the vietnam war is beyond silly..

To compare the vietnam war under Abrams to the iraq situation is prudent.

skyrock... you really need to read some books on the vietnam war that don't stop or, gloss over what happened after 1969..   I would suggest "A Better War" by Sorrley who is much more qualified to talk about it that we are.

If we abondon the iraqi's to the outside terrorists and muslim extremists... we will be repeating history... throwing away the victory and selling the iraqi people down the river.   We need to be building their police and military and withdrawing troops while supplying the iraqui's with weapons and training.

We promised all that to the vietnamese and we sold em down the river because of politicians who were afraid of the same kind of no patience dolts who would compare these wars with..... with... the friggin little bighorn!

lazs

Lazs  you are correct about the ammo, I should have said rifles and or support and better strategy!  
As far as patience goes, you are still under the assumption that the offer to the south was a strategically correct offer to make!  It wasn't.  The problem with fighting a bigger "war" on a smaller front is that the idealogy of that type of strategy is flawed!  Why on God's earth would a country pick one SE asian country to make a stand against such a bigger conflict as the "war" against commmunism?  Proper logic would have one to consider killing the actual nest of hornets, not going around to flowers and killing them one by one.  If you can't afford to attack China and Russia, then the offer to south vietnam was stupid to begin with.  

   Now lets get back to IRAQ.  If you can't (politically and/or economically)  afford to eliminate all the tyrants that might pose a threat to the US,  then why pick IRAQ?   That should be the debate, why IRAQ?  We chose correctly in hitting Afghanistan.  Why go from there to IRAQ.  The second choice should have been Saudi Arabia, if we were attacking countries that truly were a threat to us.(15 of the 9/11 fellas were from there).  What about Lebanon, Syria, Iran, all of which support organizations that have publicly declared war on the US and it's citizens.   And please don't reply with how bad Saddam was to his people.   That would be a totally different debate all together.  My question is "How good of a strategic decision was going into IRAQ?"  based on the strategy to fight the islamic terrorist threat!

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
and you don't think the North USED "Politics" as a strategy to sway the American Public and thus the American law makers against the war?  You are saying it is Irrelevent?  That is why you are clueless.  

Involvment in American politics is our enemy's version of "leaflets" because we have the right of free speech in this country.  Our enemies see this and use it to their strategic advantage when ever they can.  If you don't beleive me look at holden's link.  It will open your eyes and mind.

It is irrelevant because it is a given in military strategy to plan for this kind of warfare.  If the US is so vulnerable as to be swayed by media and actors to give up on a war while it is in progress, then our strategy for fighting wars must change!  Basically, we are vulnerable to this strategy as it has been proven that regional conflicts that aren't concluded in a short and timely manner, usually end up putting us in a far worse position than before they are started.  I am not clueless as to how effective the North were in using this strategy, just amazed at how many who have replied are still in the blame game.

[Casca]

Vietnam was lost politically not militarily and the left would like to see the same thing happen in Iraq.  The outcome of a preciptious withdrawal would no doubt be similar.  Southeast Asia became an abattoir in the wake of our departure.  So much for the left's vaunted but, alas, historically maleable concern for human rights.

The fact that we defeated and occupied a country of 25 million with a loss of 2000 lives to this point  is astounding and unprecedented.  A loss of five times that many on the way to Bagdad alone would have surprised no one.   Remember?  The possibility of chemical weapons being used on american troops, house to house fighting in bagdad.  The word "quagmire" was used by a mainstream media outlet during the sandstorm that briefly impeded progress to Bagdad.

Most of the media has put the worst possible construct on everything that has happened there from day one.  This and the rediculous histrionics emmanating from Congress gives the terrorists strength and hope.  These people are not fighting the US military, they are acutely aware they cannot win that confrontation.  They are trying to demoralize the american electorate to effect political outcomes.   They have had considerable success to this point even probably changing the outcome of the election in Spain.  


 (...Inaudible...) when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse. This is only one goal; those who want people to worship the lord of the people, without following that doctrine, will be following the doctrine of Muhammad, peace be upon him. (UBL quotes several short and incomplete Hadith verses, as follows): "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad."
                                                -- Usama Bin Laden, Dec. 2001

Bin Laden was here alluding to our flaccid responses in the wake of a multitude of insults.  He also reveals here, incidently, his objective:  conversion of everyone to his faith.  The restoration of the Caliphate.

We better be the strong horse in this deal or the repercussions will ring down through generations.

[Dago]

See Rule #2

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by SkyRock
It is irrelevant because it is a given in military strategy to plan for this kind of warfare.  If the US is so vulnerable as to be swayed by media and actors to give up on a war while it is in progress, then our strategy for fighting wars must change!  Basically, we are vulnerable to this strategy as it has been proven that regional conflicts that aren't concluded in a short and timely manner, usually end up putting us in a far worse position than before they are started.  I am not clueless as to how effective the North were in using this strategy, just amazed at how many who have replied are still in the blame game.

Your post is self-contradictory.

You claim we should use irrelevant information to change our strategy.

If it is important enough to change strategy then it is not irrelevant.

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In Oct 2002, the US Congress passes a law giving the President authority to take action in Iraq.

Several reasons other than WMD's are listed.  Saddam killing his own citizenry, Firing on coalition aircraft patroling no-fly zones, Kuwait war booty not being returned to Kuwait, and information and repatriation of Kuwait war prisoners are listed.

Those are the legislatively listed reasons.  Along with that is the thought that a working democracy run by Muslims in the heart of Islam could by advantagous.

 

Hmmmm, See thats the point.  You take away the inevitable catastrophic holocaust that saddams WMD's were going to bring, and you lose most of the support for the war.   We have not lost 1 aircraft to saddams antique air defenses.  Most of the middle eastern muslim countries have ruthless dictators who kill those who oppose them.  Pakistan, saudia arabia and Kuwait.  They are not kind and gentle dictators.  They are not democratic.  DO you think this democracy is going to spread to Saudi and Kuwait?  Hell no.  You know why?  Because the US is not going to chance having our supply of oil cut off by some extremest ayatollah who won the election.  Face the music, we are in Iraq to capture its oil fields and install a US oil interest friendly govt. there.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Hmmmm, See thats the point.  You take away the inevitable catastrophic holocaust that saddams WMD's were going to bring, and you lose most of the support for the war.   We have not lost 1 aircraft to saddams antique air defenses.  Most of the middle eastern muslim countries have ruthless dictators who kill those who oppose them.  Pakistan, saudia arabia and Kuwait.  They are not kind and gentle dictators.  They are not democratic.  DO you think this democracy is going to spread to Saudi and Kuwait?  Hell no.  You know why?  Because the US is not going to chance having our supply of oil cut off by some extremest ayatollah who won the election.  Face the music, we are in Iraq to capture its oil fields and install a US oil interest friendly govt. there.

Explain Lebonon, Egypt, and Lybia then?

[SkyRock]

See Rule #5

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Your post is self-contradictory.

You claim we should use irrelevant information to change our strategy.

If it is important enough to change strategy then it is not irrelevant.

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.