Consequences of a failure in Iraq

[lucaspa]

Perhaps. The question is, what then?

 

Iraq falls into sectarian civil war. It's going to happen anyway, is happening now, and there is no way for us to prevent it. If we are lucky, Iraq partitions into 3 states: Shiite south, Kurdistan in the north, and a Sunni state in the middle. If we are unlucky, Iran invades and creates a larger Iran.

 

In 5 or 10 years we may have a new state that is a haven for Al Queda and we may have to invade again, winning a conventional war and knocking the infrastructure down for a while.

 

Everyone looks at bad consequences if we pull out. The fact is that those consequences are going to happen anyway because we can't "win". Some battles and wars simply can't be won. Japan really couldn't win WWII, the South couldn't win the Civil War. That is, as long as the opposition kept fighting. Well, in this case the opposition is the Iraqi Insurgency and they are going to keep fighting. As long as they do, we can't win.

 

So, let's start getting ready for the consequences, because right now we are pouring more lives and treasure into a war we have already lost.

[lucaspa]

I've just got to laugh. It took you three words to skip past the question. I don't understand this sentence.

 

The reason you laughed is your ignorance. I said:

 

....the terrible consequences are not going to stop the failure nor can they be used to keep troops in Iraq.

 

We are agreed that the consequences of failure are going to be bad. We can discuss exactly what they will be. But the point is that staying in Iraq is not going to stop the consequences because, listen carefully, we have already lost. We are in a war that we can't win.

 

Look at it this way, Germany used the terrible consequences they would have to face if they lost WWII as a reason to keep fighting, especially in 1945. Didn't matter, they were going to lose and the consequences were going to happen anyway. It would have saved them lives and treasure if they would have unconditionally surrendered after the offensive in the Ardennes failed.

 

I see those as the flip side of the same coin although failure can come in many forms and degrees.

 

No, they are not. Because whether we can win or not is independent of the consequences. Whether Germany could win WWII was independent of the consequences of losing. As it turned out, they could not win.

 

And failure means... what? Oh, right, you wouldn't say.

 

Because it was irrelevant to the point I was making: whatever the consequences are, they are going to happen anyway because we can't win in Iraq. So staying isn't going to prevent whatever is going to happen "when" we fail. We have ALREADY failed and the only things left to decide are:

1. How many Americans are going to die in combat before we admit we lost.

2. Exactly when the consequences will start. They'll start when we pull out.

 

Lots of words. No answer.

 

That was an answer. The hypothesis is: staying in Iraq will prevent undesirable consequences. The answer is: no, it won't. Whatever consequences are going to happen will happen, because we have lost and staying in Iraq is not going to enable us to win. We can't win this one.

[Pangloss]

Winning in Iraq is about as possible as winning this debate. (grin)

 

Time for some agree-to-disagree.

[lucaspa]

The best analogy is Monty Python's dead parrot skit.

The Parrot is DEAD. For Americans the Iraq war is LOST.

 

No amount of prodding, poking or 'surge' is going to make a difference in the outcome.

 

There's the point!

 

Hazead, some battles/wars can't be won. No matter how many troops the Army of the Potomac threw at the stone wall at Fredricksburg, they couldn't win. No matter how much attrition the Germans tried at Verdun in 1916, they couldn't win. No matter how many troops we put into Vietnam, or how long they stayed, we couldn't win. Sometimes the military/political situation is such that only one side can win. That's what we are facing in Iraq: a military/political situation where we can't win. No matter how long we stay or if we do a surge.

 

We don't have the number of military to significantly increase the troops on the ground for any length of time, we don't have the political situation to increase the military to get enough troops, and the opponents have a military/political position where they can keep fighting us forever.

 

What if the USA was successful in Iraq? Who would have been next? would the Americans then have invaded Iran? N. Korea?...Venezuela...Cuba?...what lies would have been trumped up to invade other countries?

 

No. We don't have the troop strength to invade Iran or Venezuela. We will not countenance the casualties we would take in invading N. Korea, especially when the North Koreans nuke Seoul and one of our divisions. Cuba? Maybe militarily we could pull it off, but it would take one hell of a great lie to justify that.

[lucaspa]

Winning in Iraq is about as possible as winning this debate. (grin)

 

Time for some agree-to-disagree.

 

Depends on what the "debate" is. If the debate is whether the US can win in Iraq, then no, some people are just going to disagree. If it is about what the exact consequences the results of a US defeat will be, honest people can disagree.

 

If it is about the hypothesis that undesirable consequences of a US defeat justifies staying in Iraq, then there can be a "winner", because that hypothesis is wrong. The consequences of a defeat are separate from whether a defeat will or will not take place. A person supporting that hypothesis must move to the hypothesis that the US can win in Iraq (and thus avoid the consequences of defeat). And then we are back to where people disagree whether we can win.

[ParanoiA]

I've been staying out of this one because this Iraq thing has just been done to death it seems. But the administration has not defined what winning means any more than the opposition has defined what losing means.

 

I don't think anybody knows what the "war" actually is - or at least we're not agreeing on it.

 

We already won the "war", we took the country and could keep the country if we wanted. The insurgents can sporadically bomb our troops for the next 20 years and never take their country back. We won, period.

 

We're in occupation mode - trying to maintain peaceful order and law. That's what we can't and will never be able to win. We are the occupier going against a tenacious civilization that would rather be dead then be dictated to, by us. Sound familiar, fellow americans?

 

It's counterproductive and disingenuous to continually moan about how we've "lost" or any other defeatist propaganda. None of us have any reason to think the violence will stop - for any reason - until we leave. The best we can hope for is to get Iraqis trained to deal with the impending civil war - to prevent it or influence it. We shouldn't expect any decrease in bombings or any other terrorist act no matter how well that works.

 

I have contended for quite a while that we cannot turn our backs on the Iraqi people, that we have to fix our mess. Well, fixing our mess means training them to govern. And then we have to let them do it.

 

The violence in Iraq is not a barometer of whether we're winning or losing anything. They will fight until there is only one of them left standing in the middle of the region with a bomb strapped to his chest, and CNN will still make it sound significant.

[Realitycheck]

At this stage, "winning" means being able to walk away without leaving a full-blown civil war. Before the Palestinians split up, would you call the Israeli/Palestinian conflict a civil war? Would you call the Lebanon split a civil war? It certainly seems like it, yet the odds are heavily tilted to the favor of the Israelis and the Lebanese government, because these are the legitimate rulers of these lands.

 

We already lost, from a cost/benefit standpoint, the minute we invaded. However, it's impossible to know what will be gained out of the experience until we actually leave. I still believe that a reasonable amount of peace will be salvaged out of the mess. These little groups of insurgents are like mosquitos in the grand scheme of things. Think numbers. Moslems are born to fight. The masses will dominate. Somehow the Army gets these leads and gradually cleans house. This is something that the legitimate Iraqi forces will continue to do. They are not going to let these pesky mosquitos dominate Iraq.

[ParanoiA]

At this stage, "winning" means being able to walk away without leaving a full-blown civil war.

 

Then we're talking years before we can leave. Years because it's going to take that long to put together a formidable enough Iraqi force to keep it from happening. From what I've read anyway.

 

Before the Palestinians split up, would you call the Israeli/Palestinian conflict a civil war? Would you call the Lebanon split a civil war? It certainly seems like it, yet the odds are heavily tilted to the favor of the Israelis and the Lebanese government, because these are the legitimate rulers of these lands.

 

Makes sense that the legitimate rulers of the lands will have the formibable force too. But I don't know that that's true with the Iraqi's. If Iran is supplying weapons and fighters, then the Iraqi's need at least the same resources, preferably greater. And then of course, we're right back to training and supporting people that could very well be our enemy in the coming decades.

 

This is something that the legitimate Iraqi forces will continue to do. They are not going to let these pesky mosquitos dominate Iraq.

 

I hope you're right. That's something I haven't heard too much about - Iraqi fighters. The will of the Iraqi law enforcement and security.

[armygas]

Then we're talking years before we can leave.

 

The U.S. won't be leaving anytime soon we will be there at least 15 years, think of all the places we are still in...... Japan, Korea, Germany, Bosnia, etc, etc. The current admin had nothing to do with those places, once you gain a strategic outpost you don't easily leave it.

[ParanoiA]

The U.S. won't be leaving anytime soon we will be there at least 15 years, think of all the places we are still in...... Japan, Korea, Germany, Bosnia, etc, etc. The current admin had nothing to do with those places, once you gain a strategic outpost you don't easily leave it.

 

Hmm, interesting point. Well then it should be interesting to see how the next administration deals with that reality, particularly since it will more than likely be the current opposition.

[Haezed]

There comes a point when people just have to stand on their own feet, it happens for lots of people. The Iraqis have a lot to lose by not making something out of this (like the proceeds from a whole bunch of oil, for one). They know this. This is regime change. The majority is gaining control. The majority will be gaining a lot of tools and know-how out of this. The majority is being taught how to make something out of this. It's always the idiot splinter groups that make it so hard, but if the Sunnis can be taught to turn Al-Qaeda, then there should be plenty of hope.

 

Will the Iraqis let their big chance slide into chaos? I think not.

 

I want to believe this conclusion. If we honestly think the Iraqis can stand up without degenerating into genocide or without Iran destablizing the region or providing safe haven for terrorists, I agree we should withdraw.

 

We've worked too hard to fix our mess.

 

You are now blending into your argument our sunk costs which, as Bascule noted, should not be considered.

 

There is no way that we will kill all of the insurgents.

 

True, but you've already argued that our action has been a success because we've given Iraqi's their freedom and they will be able to defend themselves without our aid. If we need to stay a bit longer to preserve the hard won victory, I'd say that is a judgment call.

[Haezed]

blame? According to Bush and Cheney it would be 'praise'.

 

I appologize that i misread your post. You were praising Bush. That's two posters in a row! I stand humbled before you both.

 

 

The war in Iraq is lost.

 

Now I"m confused.

 

Not pleasure but feeling a lot safer. What if the USA was successful in Iraq? Who would have been next? would the Americans then have invaded Iran? N. Korea?...Venezuela...Cuba?...what lies would have been trumped up to invade other countries?

 

Iran would have been the closest call. I think the idea that we might have invaded Cuba is fanciful.

 

The USA has been humiliated in Iraq and the world won't accept American 'evidence' to justify more aggression.

 

The USA will survive the humiliation although much of the world has proven itself a bit thick. I agree that a real downside of this war was to establish the limits of US power.

 

It's a pendulum. You may recall that GHB was disempowered, in part, because he did not finish Saddam off when he had the chance. You just can't please everyone.

 

The USA reached a low point with its 'Freedom Fries' tantrum and, after it is forced out of Iraq, the USA will have the opportunity to redeem its tainted image.

 

The rest of the world can stuff itself if it thinks that on balance the USA is "tainted."

 

Recap:

 

Saddam is out. That's a good thing.

Iraqis have the chance for freedom. That's good.

Limits of US projecting power has been reestablished post Vietnam: That might be good or bad depending on your POV.

 

I thought the freedom fries were hilarious.

[ParanoiA]

I thought the freedom fries were hilarious.

 

It's even funnier when it makes them mad...

[lucaspa]

We already won the "war", we took the country and could keep the country if we wanted. The insurgents can sporadically bomb our troops for the next 20 years and never take their country back. We won, period.

 

No, we didn't. In fact, you admitted this yourself when you said

We're in occupation mode - trying to maintain peaceful order and law. That's what we can't and will never be able to win. We are the occupier going against a tenacious civilization that would rather be dead then be dictated to, by us.

 

After all, in order to "keep" the country, we must have an accepting population. So yes, you admit we lost because the insurgents are going to "take their country back".

 

1. We lost a battle on the war on terrorism the instant we invaded Iraq. We had deprived Al Queda of safe havens in Afghanistan. We gave them back in Iraq.

 

2. "We" can't "keep" the country. Anymore than we could "keep" South VietNam. We simply don't control the populace or have them on our side. The initiative is ALL with the insurgents. You can't win a war when the opposition has the initiative. Eventually, our casualties will reach a level that our military can't sustain and we will be "driven" from Iraq.

 

The violence in Iraq is not a barometer of whether we're winning or losing anything.

 

Yes, it is. It's a measure of how many people think that they have to "take their country back". If we had "won" and were considered liberators who were just helping out until a democratic government was in place, then the Iraqis would be turning in the insurgents right and left. Instead, as you admit, we are being viewed as occupiers.

 

Compare the level of violence in Iraq today with the level of violence in occupied Germany in 1946. In both cases we conqueored and occupied a country -- throwing out a brutal dictator in the process. Yet we won in Germany and had a very peaceful occupation.

[lucaspa]

Iran would have been the closest call. I think the idea that we might have invaded Cuba is fanciful.

 

Both are fanciful. If we don't have the troops to occupy Iraq, we certainly don't have the troops to occupy Iran. Our military is simply not large enough to conqueor Iran.

 

The USA will survive the humiliation although much of the world has proven itself a bit thick. I agree that a real downside of this war was to establish the limits of US power.

 

The USA already had limits to its power. The real downside losing credibility among our allies in our judgement. We might not be able to get them to help when it really does matter.

 

The rest of the world can stuff itself if it thinks that on balance the USA is "tainted."

 

Illogical. The question is whether the USA IS "tainted". It is. We have violated some of our core principles: treatment of prisoners (much of what we have done is the same as what the Gestapo did), honesty in the justification for a war,

 

Saddam is out. That's a good thing.

 

Saddam was going to be out eventually anyway. We had him contained so that he could do no harm to his neighbors and very little harm to his own people. The Kurds, for instance, were better off under the no-fly zones than they are now. It's not a coincidence that getting rid of Saddam was the last and least reason the Bush Administration used to justify the war. In the spring of 2002 they started with (fictional) weapons of mass destruction, then added (fictional) ties to Al Queda in the summer, and only in the fall did we hear about what a bad guy Hussein was. Sorry, getting rid of a peaceful dictator is not enough of a "good thing" to go to war. Especially when that dictator has been denied control of 2/3 of his country. All we had to do was be patient and wait. 4,000 American sevicepeople (and counting) and tens of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive.

 

Iraqis have the chance for freedom. That's good.

 

Iraqis already had the chance for freedom. In fact, it was a better chance when Saddam was contained and we were waiting for an internal transition of power -- as in when he died. Under those circumstances, the Iraqis would have had time to peacefully consider how they wanted a post-Saddam government and country to look like. So it's bad that we invaded because WE are the ones that thru the country into total political chaos.

Limits of US projecting power has been reestablished post Vietnam: That might be good or bad depending on your POV.

 

I thought the freedom fries were hilarious.

 

It was juvenile. Are you aware that the French saves our asses -- twice -- in North Africa in 1942-1943? (Not to mention saving our ass so we could even BE a nation in 1777-1783.) Yes, twice. Outnumbered sometimes 3 or 4 to 1 and with inadequate weapons and supplies, it was French forces that held 2 key passes in the mountains of Tunisia and kept the Germans from sweeping around the American flank and annihilating the American army. See An Army at Dawn for the details.

 

And this is how we show our gratitude? They disagree with us once and all we do is hold them up for humiliation? Any wonder our prestige is so low in the rest of the world?

[armygas]

 

Compare the level of violence in Iraq today with the level of violence in occupied Germany in 1946. In both cases we conqueored and occupied a country -- throwing out a brutal dictator in the process. Yet we won in Germany and had a very peaceful occupation.

 

Really? Can you really compare the two wars? You should read these comments on the similarities of the two wars as a start.

 

"American deaths were a mere 418,000 citizens" for WWII http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/doaks_20061028.html

 

 

Also, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/11/world_war_ii_and_iraq_its_more.html

 

"In Iraq, the vast majority of Americans hardly notice we are at war.

 

The two wars though do reflect the snapshots of our society.

 

World War II was fought in the day of saving bonds and rationing: Our forefathers spent what they had. They scraped the bottom and sacrificed to earn security."

 

 

 

You cannot compare apples and oranges.........

[armygas]

Our military is simply not large enough to conqueor Iran.

 

We have violated some of our core principles: treatment of prisoners (much of what we have done is the same as what the Gestapo did), honesty in the justification for a war,

 

The Kurds, for instance, were better off under the no-fly zones than they are now.

 

I think you overstep your bounds when you speak of the military, what exactly is your experience or is this alot of "hand-waving". Where are you getting your information from....or is this your opinion?

[lucaspa]

I want to believe this conclusion. If we honestly think the Iraqis can stand up without degenerating into genocide or without Iran destablizing the region or providing safe haven for terrorists, I agree we should withdraw.

 

The question is whether our continued presence can prevent these consequences. So far, all the evidence I've seen says that our continued presence won't prevent these from happening. What is your evidence that our presence will prevent them?

 

True, but you've already argued that our action has been a success because we've given Iraqi's their freedom and they will be able to defend themselves without our aid.

 

1. Both the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north had already had a considerable degree of autonomy and freedom BEFORE we invaded -- in large part due to the no-fly zones (which also meant no Hussein military zones) and Hussein's fear of another war with the US. So invading Iraq didn't give anything we hadn't already "given" them. Instead, it took freedom away.

 

2. What is your evidence that the Iraqi government will be able to "defend themselves without our aid"? Now, there is evidence that the various sectarian militias can defend themselves without our aid, but that isn't what you mean, is it? What you mean is a system like in the USA, where the elected government is popular and strong enough to put down the occasional violent dissident without disturbing the population.

 

If we need to stay a bit longer to preserve the hard won victory, I'd say that is a judgment call.

 

This is where the disagreement lies. Is our continued presence going to be able to generate an elected government capable of forming "a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"? I say all the evidence says "no". Our presence for the last 3 years has not done so. What makes you think that keeping our troops there is going to gain those goals?

[armygas]

What makes you think that keeping our troops there is going to gain those goals?

 

What makes you think that removing the troops there is going to gain those goals?

 

As a military person, its much easier to finish a job than to have to return to a hostile area. You are forgetting that we had the opportunity to finish this in 1991 but did not and Iraq became a larger problem. So based on history, if we do not finish the mission correctly then our children will have a much larger battle to fight.

 

Let us finish our mission, its a tough one but a necessary one.

[geoguy]

You are forgetting that we had the opportunity to finish this in 1991 but did not and Iraq became a larger problem. So based on history, if we do not finish the mission correctly then our children will have a much larger battle to fight.

 

Let us finish our mission, its a tough one but a necessary one.

 

Too funny. The mission is? The enemy is? Your children AND grandchildren will still be killing Iraqis not because the USA will RETURUN to Iraq but because the USA will never have left. The Americans won't be just rotating current troops but training a new generation of troops to continue the never ending kicking down of the doors of Iraqi homes.

 

The Parrot is dead. Go home. Get out of Iraq. Start picking up the few moral scraps that are left and rebuild the image of the USA from the most distrusted nation with the most despised leader to one of a positive force in the world.

[armygas]

Too funny. The mission is? The enemy is? Your children AND grandchildren will still be killing Iraqis not because the USA will RETURUN to Iraq but because the USA will never have left. The Americans won't be just rotating current troops but training a new generation of troops to continue the never ending kicking down of the doors of Iraqi homes.

 

The Parrot is dead. Go home. Get out of Iraq. Start picking up the few moral scraps that are left and rebuild the image of the USA from the most distrusted nation with the most despised leader to one of a positive force in the world.

...........and who are you? You know only what has been presented in the media, have you ever been there? I think not, yet you speak as if you have the answers for everything. You really believe its just that easy, but again you are wrong. I have never killed anyone as I am an anesthetist I have seen the effects of war and would you like to know who the insurgents really are? They are syrian fighter, iranian fighters, fedayeen fighters...... that is who is getting targeted and they have killed thousands of innocents and then use innocents as shields when we engage them. Please get your facts straight. So enjoy your comfortable life and the fact that you have no idea of what is happening as you have no expertise on the subject. If you want to talk politics, thats great, but when you spit spiteful untruths at the U.S. Military then you overstep your knowledge base. Politicians dictate the mission and the soldier carries it out. The mission is to stabilize Iraq and that hasn't happened yet and like it or not it won't happen for some time. Even after that happens, we won't leave (remember Japan, Germany, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia...we are still there and it makes good strategic sense to keep those outposts but you have no sense of strategic planning).

[geoguy]

 

What crap have you been tripping on? Come the end of 2007 the U.S. Congress will start cutting off funds for the fiasco and most of the REPUBLICAN Senators will be on side with the American people. The role model for Iraqinam is Vietnam. Sanity will win out.

 

The longer the U.S.A. stays mired in the stinking quagmire, the more humiliated the U.SA. will be when it leaves. The more 'critical' the 'victory' (not defined) is made to be, the harder the bully falls. There will be no more appetite to prop up thug dictators in neighboring Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Game over.

 

The world will move on fine. Royal dictators, military dictators, religious nutbar dictators will be happy to sell their oil. The universe won't come to an end. the sun will come out and the United States of Paranoia will take a deep breath and be wiser. Bush praying on his knees has no direct line to Jesus. No monopoly on inside info on the forces of 'good vs evil'. The Jesus dude is quite happy to eat French Fries while Cheney and the lads enjoy their Freedom Fries and Yellow Cake.

 

the Iraq war is lost. The parrot is dead.

[foodchain]

...........and who are you? You know only what has been presented in the media, have you ever been there? I think not, yet you speak as if you have the answers for everything. You really believe its just that easy, but again you are wrong. I have never killed anyone as I am an anesthetist I have seen the effects of war and would you like to know who the insurgents really are? They are syrian fighter, iranian fighters, fedayeen fighters...... that is who is getting targeted and they have killed thousands of innocents and then use innocents as shields when we engage them. Please get your facts straight. So enjoy your comfortable life and the fact that you have no idea of what is happening as you have no expertise on the subject. If you want to talk politics, thats great, but when you spit spiteful untruths at the U.S. Military then you overstep your knowledge base. Politicians dictate the mission and the soldier carries it out. The mission is to stabilize Iraq and that hasn't happened yet and like it or not it won't happen for some time. Even after that happens, we won't leave (remember Japan, Germany, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia...we are still there and it makes good strategic sense to keep those outposts but you have no sense of strategic planning).

 

 

Talking to troops may not be the best way to gauge the situation either, I have spoken to plenty that want nothing more then our troops out of there among some other very negative opinions of the whole ordeal. I think, to go out on a limb here, that the war is basically lost. We need a massive amount of troops with a real plan, this is never going to occur because it would mean a draft, I mean I guess it could occur, but politics has been this war since day one and will continue to be. The funny part is if we could get off of oil, then play the security part on our soil with money and funds going into this war, I doubt really that any Americans would ever die of terrorism to any real extent. I don’t know if we could police everywhere in the world an American might venture is all, but on our soil I think we could basically prevent terrorism if we wanted to. I mean just what I read about what lead up to 9-11 it sounded like that could have been prevented.

[Realitycheck]

...........and who are you? You know only what has been presented in the media, have you ever been there? I think not, yet you speak as if you have the answers for everything. You really believe its just that easy, but again you are wrong. I have never killed anyone as I am an anesthetist I have seen the effects of war and would you like to know who the insurgents really are? They are syrian fighter, iranian fighters, fedayeen fighters...... that is who is getting targeted and they have killed thousands of innocents and then use innocents as shields when we engage them. Please get your facts straight. So enjoy your comfortable life and the fact that you have no idea of what is happening as you have no expertise on the subject. If you want to talk politics, thats great, but when you spit spiteful untruths at the U.S. Military then you overstep your knowledge base. Politicians dictate the mission and the soldier carries it out. The mission is to stabilize Iraq and that hasn't happened yet and like it or not it won't happen for some time. Even after that happens, we won't leave (remember Japan, Germany, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia...we are still there and it makes good strategic sense to keep those outposts but you have no sense of strategic planning).

 

I'm hearing you, man. You are saying that the majority of the people you take out are foreign fighters, people who are there to fight jihad against the "snake" that is America, right? What you are saying is that the majority of the people who are there to fight could really care less about the remnants of the Iran/Iraq war or the age-old rift between Sunnis and Shias, in general, right? This is an anti-American influence war, because sure enough, there are tons of jihadis trying to screw things up for the evil Americans and everything that they don't stand for, in general, right? I'm just trying to figure it all out. Surely, they have something better to do, but if the evil Americans are in their backyard telling them how to run their lands, then surely they just have to fight, because this is what was prophesized in the Kuran. If we left, they would have no reason to keep on. This is the core belief among people who want us to leave. Am I right or am I right? Do these foreign fighters really care about the politics between the Iraqi Sunnis and Shias, or are they just there to screw things up for the Americans, to fight the evil Americans? Are you saying that these foreign fighters have pretty much resolved to commit suicide, regardless of who they kill, just as long as they go out with a bang? Or is there an underlying organization to everything (Al Qaeda has them lined up in a regiment)? Frankly, if Iran has teamed up with Hamas, it seems like anything is possible now. Of course, I say Iran, those who know the true story say Iranians. It's kind of hard to get the complete story straight.

 

You're dead right. I have absolutely no idea what it is like there. I see this big war of words going on between John McCain saying, "Yeah, we can walk down this street in broad daylight" and Michael Ware of CNN, who has been there for quite a while, saying, "No, no, I wouldn't walk down that neighborhood if I were you." So what happens? John McCain takes a female Congress lady and walks down the street with her, probably right after an entire regiment cleans out the whole 100 block corridor, in the background, so he can save face. Am I right, or is Michael Ware just a wuss from taking too many assignments like that? Maybe he was gunshy from having been kidnapped by Al Qaeda a short time before (and rescued on the same day).

 

Of course, I am digressing. I have a lot of respect for our troops. They all have a job to do and little choice in the matter, so everybody tries real hard to do the best they can. I also have a lot of respect for most people's beliefs. There is a good reason why Moslems think they are better than the Jews and the Christians, and surely everybody else.

 

So the gist of the matter is, do we have to kill all of the foreign fighters or could the Iraqis do it, in your opinion? Why couldn't they do it, if not? They have had time to train for a while, with better oversight than the average army. They will be armed to the teeth, compared to the foreign fighters, right? It looks like we might already start pulling back this spring.

[ParanoiA]

After all, in order to "keep" the country, we must have an accepting population. So yes, you admit we lost because the insurgents are going to "take their country back".

 

No you don't need an accepting population. They don't need to accept anything and still lose their country. You need an accepting population if you want a place worth living in, though. You need an accepting population if you want peaceful law and order - not just law and order.

 

There can be plenty of violence everyday, and the media can make as big of a deal as they want out of it, but it doesn't mean there is no order - just not peaceful, violence free order. Plenty of people are murdered everyday in the US - sometimes more in one US city than all of Iraq - but we're still in a state of law and order and no one is declaring the nation is lost - the revolutionary war is lost.

 

Tell me how the insurgency has a better hold of the country than the US. If we traded shoes with the insurgency, you'd have to be saying we don't have the country at all, and the enemy has only lost a fraction of what we've lost, and that our only method of fighting seems to be dressing up like civilians and blowing up things here or there, without any new stronghold or advancement to show for it.

 

You'd have to go on and on about how their technology, firepower and organization, battle skills and equipment are ridiculously superior to ours and how we'll never take the country back. And You'd be correct. Because the shoes aren't switched like that, and we are in possession of the country.

 

1. We lost a battle on the war on terrorism the instant we invaded Iraq. We had deprived Al Queda of safe havens in Afghanistan. We gave them back in Iraq.

 

A case could also be made that enflaming terrorism in Iraq causes them to activate and move in Iraq, thereby giving us a chance to kill them. A case could also be made that we want to "have it out" in Iraq, rather than let them fester for years and years, perhaps decades, leaving us with a false sense of security - and then launch a grand attack that makes 9/11 look like a tea party.

 

2. "We" can't "keep" the country. Anymore than we could "keep" South VietNam. We simply don't control the populace or have them on our side. The initiative is ALL with the insurgents. You can't win a war when the opposition has the initiative. Eventually, our casualties will reach a level that our military can't sustain and we will be "driven" from Iraq.

 

You're confusing will with possibility. We could have kept south vietnam if we wanted. We didn't have the will necessary to do that. War isn't easy. You need a lot of support, in several key areas, in order to maintain long, bloody conflicts. That's why anti-war folks always jump to defeatism - morale is a great focus point to remove will from war. It's hard to convince people war is bad when their military is winning.

 

Yes, it is. It's a measure of how many people think that they have to "take their country back".

 

No, because if only ONE person was left, they would still attack and CNN would report it like it matters.

 

If we had "won" and were considered liberators who were just helping out until a democratic government was in place, then the Iraqis would be turning in the insurgents right and left. Instead, as you admit, we are being viewed as occupiers.

 

Because we are occupiers. If the french had done the same thing after the revolutionary war, we would have started fighting them. It's not uncommon to want help being liberated by an ally, and then expect that ally not to turn right around and take your country.

 

I think, however, the Iraqis are unrealistic if they think they could have dealt with the aftermath on their own, even though, as I said, it would be quite expected for them to do so. This is the irrational side of middle eastern politics. It doesn't matter if thousands or millions were slaughtered through civil war, leading to imperialism by a neighboring country - it only matters that "the great Satan" is on their blessed soil.

 

I think you overstep your bounds when you speak of the military, what exactly is your experience or is this alot of "hand-waving". Where are you getting your information from....or is this your opinion?

 

Yes, armygas. Some think that their views of the conflict, thousands of miles away, getting their information from a business that makes it's money with drama, is somehow superior to your direct observations on location.

 

Personally, I think the military has less motivation to lie or spin than any capitalist corporate news organization.