Was Iraq ever winnable?

[Sisyphus]

It's one thing to talk politics in here - but military strategy? Come on. None of us know a damn thing about what we're talking about. These strategies aren't thought up by Bush and Cheyney over tea. These strategies are carefully laid out by intelligent military personnel, some young, some old, all impressive tacticions and leaders - not the idiots we elect for office. They just take the credit or the blame.

 

Well now I'm not so sure about that. I mean, yes, obviously the strategies are devised by generals and the like. But generals disagree, and the President is ultimately the one who decides. Now suppose that President and his staff only listen to those generals who are telling them what they've already decided they want to hear. That credit or blame we assign them starts to have a lot more meaning, doesn't it? And isn't that pretty much exactly what happened?

[ParanoiA]

Well now I'm not so sure about that. I mean, yes, obviously the strategies are devised by generals and the like. But generals disagree, and the President is ultimately the one who decides. Now suppose that President and his staff only listen to those generals who are telling them what they've already decided they want to hear. That credit or blame we assign them starts to have a lot more meaning, doesn't it? And isn't that pretty much exactly what happened?

 

Not really. Because as Skye pointed out, sometimes the strategy is still somewhat of a loss, but less of a loss - and necessary. We would all post opinions about how stupid they are when we really don't understand the pragmatism necessary for the situation. We also don't realisticly understand the capabilities of our military. Each branch has a lot of toys and manpower, most of which we don't really understand enough to make an accurate comment about much of anything militarily.

 

Of course, I also realize this is a government answerable to the people and so perhaps we should understand, but I don't think anybody really does.

[Skye]

I'm not sure I understand how we would have been drawn into an internal conflict in Iraq upon Saddam's death. Why would that be the case?

To keep a lid on it. Protect the oil lines and prevent the neighbours from being drawn into it.

[Sisyphus]

Not really. Because as Skye pointed out, sometimes the strategy is still somewhat of a loss, but less of a loss - and necessary. We would all post opinions about how stupid they are when we really don't understand the pragmatism necessary for the situation. We also don't realisticly understand the capabilities of our military. Each branch has a lot of toys and manpower, most of which we don't really understand enough to make an accurate comment about much of anything militarily.

 

Of course, I also realize this is a government answerable to the people and so perhaps we should understand, but I don't think anybody really does.

 

I don't understand how this relates to the text you quoted.

[Pangloss]

It was better to be able to position US forces before an invasion than to have to react to Saddam dying, a coup, or whatever. Then the US would be wading knee deep into a civil war from the get go, picking a side and hello, Vietnam/Korea all over again.

What oil lines? Iraq was under a restriction of a million barrels per year under oil-for-food, if memory serves. Most of the investment opportunities for theoretical expansion of the SE field following UN sanction-lifting were falling under European control based on contracts, business ties and precidents (and, allegedly, corruption of the oil-for-food program). If Iraq was suddenly freed by assassination of Saddam, say in 2006, it would have been Europe's focus, not America's.

 

I see no precedent or impetus whatsoever for the US to get involved in a sectarial civil war following, say, a hypothetical 2006 assassination of Hussein.

[Skye]

1. Europe probably can't, and almost certainly wouldn't, do much.

2. Oil prices would still be affected globally.

3. There's still the threat of the situation expanding outside Iraq, to US allies.

[GutZ]

I shudder every time I think of the money we're spending on Iraq. It just absolutely boggles the mind. I don't buy statements like "without Iraq we'd have balanced the budget" -- those statements belie an understanding of how big the budget is (not that anyone here was making that claim). But by golly, that is just a whopping amount of cash.

 

Very true. I don't particularly think it's a waste, under the premises that the US gets something out of this war (The "I told you so"), I was just merely commenting that spending that money solely to get Saddam out of Iraq is a waste.

 

I am not an avid fan of war. Something had to be done though, although it may have not worked out perfectly to plan and they take longer then anyone wants, but thats expected. Alot of time I hear grief in Canada about the war, but we'd do the same if someone attacked us (*mumbles* may not change our reason 5 different times..), I'd agree with them that the US TV/Politics/power can make the US look very egotistical, but that never justified the attacks.

 

The mannerism within US Politics seems to make people cringe, Stay the course, Support the troops, The war on terror is real, etc, the whole plain, simple, black and white picture that's not always the case making look like the US is overlooking or simplifying the situation.

 

Ultimately people should see the problem with recent events. They may not agree with the militaristic approach but they can't just let it go like there is no problem.

 

So...basically I think Iraq was "winnable" from the global perspective, if everyone helped out, or put as much effort into it as possible, and for the US to stop believing it can affectively solve the worlds problems.

 

If the war is lost, I think it's more a loss at the concept of unity, and obsession with geographical borders than, terrorism (If that's still the reason ).

[ParanoiA]

I don't understand how this relates to the text you quoted.

 

I misread your post. Sorry.

 

And isn't that pretty much exactly what happened?

 

How would we really know? I know that Bush wanted to do something about Iraq before Sept 11 happened, so I'm sure it's plausible that he only listened to those who said what he wanted to hear.

 

Do you know something I apparently don't?

[ParanoiA]

The mannerism within US Politics seems to make people cringe, Stay the course, Support the troops, The war on terror is real, etc, the whole plain, simple, black and white picture that's not always the case making look like the US is overlooking or simplifying the situation.

 

Makes me cringe too actually. I can't help but to feel like a victim of propaganda when I watch the news. Everyone killed is either an american soldier or a "terrorist" / "insurgent". They talk about these "battles" going on here and there. I shudder to think how many innocent civilians are being slaughtered and tagged "terrorist".

 

And with the republicans challenging everyone's patriotism upon questioning, it has a strange, manipulative feeling to me. I don't have any real intellect to support any of that - just an ugly gut feeling.

[Sisyphus]

 

Do you know something I apparently don't?

 

I guess I can't say for sure what goes on inside the White House, but it does seem like a pretty much universal complaint among former senior administration officials, like Richard Clarke, Colin Powell, etc. One would be easy to dismiss as a disgruntled employee trying to save his own reputation, but you hear it all the time.

[ParanoiA]

I guess I can't say for sure what goes on inside the White House, but it does seem like a pretty much universal complaint among former senior administration officials, like Richard Clarke, Colin Powell, etc. One would be easy to dismiss as a disgruntled employee trying to save his own reputation, but you hear it all the time.

 

Yeah, and I would believe Colin Powell over GWB any day. Actually, I'd probably believe a bum on the side of road over GWB, come to think of it.

 

I wish Powell would have run for president. I would have actually voted non-libertarian...unless of course he ran as a libertarian - which I'm sure he wouldn't have.

[Haezed]

And with the republicans challenging everyone's patriotism upon questioning, it has a strange, manipulative feeling to me. I don't have any real intellect to support any of that - just an ugly gut feeling.

 

Republicans challenged everyone's patriotism? I don't see this at all. It may be an over-simplification to call Murtha , for example, a "cut & runner" but that's a policy criticism, not a question of patriotism.

[Pangloss]

Very true. I don't particularly think it's a waste, under the premises that the US gets something out of this war (The "I told you so"), I was just merely commenting that spending that money solely to get Saddam out of Iraq is a waste.

 

I am not an avid fan of war. Something had to be done though, although it may have not worked out perfectly to plan and they take longer then anyone wants, but thats expected. Alot of time I hear grief in Canada about the war, but we'd do the same if someone attacked us (*mumbles* may not change our reason 5 different times..), I'd agree with them that the US TV/Politics/power can make the US look very egotistical, but that never justified the attacks.

 

The mannerism within US Politics seems to make people cringe, Stay the course, Support the troops, The war on terror is real, etc, the whole plain, simple, black and white picture that's not always the case making look like the US is overlooking or simplifying the situation.

 

Ultimately people should see the problem with recent events. They may not agree with the militaristic approach but they can't just let it go like there is no problem.

 

So...basically I think Iraq was "winnable" from the global perspective, if everyone helped out, or put as much effort into it as possible, and for the US to stop believing it can affectively solve the worlds problems.

 

If the war is lost, I think it's more a loss at the concept of unity, and obsession with geographical borders than, terrorism (If that's still the reason ).

 

 

Interesting post.

 

I don't accept that "something had to be done", but I understand where the sentiment is coming from. My fear is that people felt that way mainly because of media and political focus. That concerns me greatly. But I can't say that there's not a point to be made there, and I agree with the rest of the post.

[Phi for All]

Republicans challenged everyone's patriotism? I don't see this at all.

I could be wrong but I believe ParanoiA was referring to the typical practice of mistaking lack of support for the war as lack of support for the troops involved. I see this a great deal from Iraq war supporters, who seem to be predominantly Republican.

[GutZ]

Interesting post.

 

I don't accept that "something had to be done", but I understand where the sentiment is coming from. My fear is that people felt that way mainly because of media and political focus. That concerns me greatly. But I can't say that there's not a point to be made there, and I agree with the rest of the post.

 

Yeah...well I guess the "something had to be done" insinuates war, I meant it as like even spending more of defensives measure to ensure stability. Basically a reaction was inevitable from a political stance in my view (I am not a very political guy though). I highly doubt the government would just ignore it.

[ParanoiA]

I could be wrong but I believe ParanoiA was referring to the typical practice of mistaking lack of support for the war as lack of support for the troops involved. I see this a great deal from Iraq war supporters, who seem to be predominantly Republican.

 

Thank you. To be honest, I really didn't think that would have to be explained to anyone. Of course, I listen to talk radio from time to time, so maybe that's why.

 

They really challenge patriotism when it comes to not supporting the Patriot Act and the NSA wire tapping program. I disagree with this ascertion, but I think that's more political positioning than anything else.

 

But, when you listen to democrats berate our actions, it comes across quite anti-american. Rush played this little game on the radio where he would quote a mystery person and you had to guess if the quote was from a democrat or an Al Quada leader. It was quite startling how many quotes were from democrats.

 

But I don't think they're really anti-american, I think it's just pinheaded idealism mixed with political maneuvering.

 

This is why I can't stand the party system.

[Sisyphus]

The way I see it, some liberals do pretty much hate America, yes, but only inasmuch as they've bought in to the very propaganda they think they're fighting. In other words, conservatives try to equate their own ideals with America in the public consciousness. When their political enemies start believing them, then they end up hating "America" and looking like traitors. This, in my opinion, has been the most striking example of the vastly superior ability of the conservative political machine to coordinate and manipulate its message compared with any comparable liberal efforts.

[ParanoiA]

The way I see it, some liberals do pretty much hate America, yes, but only inasmuch as they've bought in to the very propaganda they think they're fighting. In other words, conservatives try to equate their own ideals with America in the public consciousness. When their political enemies start believing them, then they end up hating "America" and looking like traitors. This, in my opinion, has been the most striking example of the vastly superior ability of the conservative political machine to coordinate and manipulate its message compared with any comparable liberal efforts.

 

Nice observation. I agree. This is that nasty gut feeling I get when I hear conservatives talk about "spreading" democracy and romanticizing our freedoms. I blame the fear of terrorism on the effectiveness of the conservative political machine. It used to be the liberal machine that had all of the power. But it seems like either Clinton or Osama pushed us the other way.

[Haezed]

I could be wrong but I believe ParanoiA was referring to the typical practice of mistaking lack of support for the war as lack of support for the troops involved. I see this a great deal from Iraq war supporters, who seem to be predominantly Republican.

 

I recall seeing Hanity doing this a couple of times but I do not see this as occurring a great deal. Perhaps you could find a a few cites where this tactic was used by any prominent republican office holder?