Latest Developments in Iraq

[Graham]

This BBC News story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3266215.stm) gives a good summary of the latest developments:

Japan has said it will postpone sending troops to join the US-led coalition in Iraq until next year because of the worsening security situation.

In other Iraq developments:

* A large explosion is reported in Baghdad - smoke is billowing across the city

* Security across British-controlled southern Iraq is tightened, particularly in Nasiriya and at coalition regional headquarters in Basra

* The US military reports that another of its soldiers has been killed in Baghdad by a roadside bomb; overnight, US forces in the capital went on the offensive against suspected militants, killing two and capturing five

* A leaked CIA report warns that attempts to rebuild Iraq as a democracy are in danger of collapse, with growing numbers of Iraqis supporting armed opposition to coalition rule.

Obviously the last of these is the most significant. The full story is here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3265655.stm)

Also in the news, of course, is the explosion at the Italian facility in Narisya (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3263087.stm)

I'm posting this purely for discussion and would appreciate restraint from any partisan heckling! :p

Graham

[The Don]

It's almost like trying to help out the person next door who is being beaten by their partner.

You get involved because you feel it's the right thing to do. They are initially grateful. As you keep telling them how rotten their partner is they think to themselves "well they were a ba$t@rd but at least they were my ba$t@rd".

Then their partner starts threatening you, now you're involved.

You could just cut and run, but you'd feel guilty, if you stay involved you're going to get a slapping.

And that's when it hits you, you're in a lose-lose situation. Anything you do will have negative repercussions.

I was against the war but now that it's happened and thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of coalition participants have lost their lives, I would like to see an appropriate conclusion reached. We owe it to the Iraqis and ourselves to see it through.

[Crossbow]

The most recent development that I have found to be quite illuminating is where Paul Bremer had to travel all the way from Iraq to the White House to personally brief the Bush on what was going on in Iraq (at a time when the situation in Iraq is going from bad to worse) and what is being planned. If the news was good and the situation was favorable, then I am sure that the consultation could have been done at a lower level via a video-link as opposed to a sudden personal visit.

But instead, he was summoned to the White House, had to immediately brief the president, then was sent out to face the reporters on his own (without so much as a White House statement of support), and then had to return to Iraq post-haste.

My guess is that this was about the worst couple of days Bremer has ever had in his professional life.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by The Don
It's almost like trying to help out the person next door who is being beaten by their partner.

You get involved because you feel it's the right thing to do. They are initially grateful. As you keep telling them how rotten their partner is they think to themselves "well they were a ba$t@rd but at least they were my ba$t@rd".

Then their partner starts threatening you, now you're involved.

You could just cut and run, but you'd feel guilty, if you stay involved you're going to get a slapping.

And that's when it hits you, you're in a lose-lose situation. Anything you do will have negative repercussions.

I was against the war but now that it's happened and thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of coalition participants have lost their lives, I would like to see an appropriate conclusion reached. We owe it to the Iraqis and ourselves to see it through.

Lose-lose? Yes, definitely.

See it through? There is nothing to see through! You assume there is a magical positive outcome at the end. But like our intervention in Vietnam's internal politics and our sanctions against Cuba/Castro for what is also an internal situation, who knows what benefits have EVER accrued from these misguided missions? And at what cost? And unlike the situation with your neighbor, there are international rules that in effect say "keep your nose out of our business" which the US is flaunting.

The ends do not justify the means, and the ending will be bad anyway. US out of Iraq. P.S. I think President Bush is coming around on this issue himself.

[Tony]

All this is laid at the feet of Bush and his ineptitude in this situation and his lack of formulating a comprehensive plan.

[Luke T.]

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people expect positive results.

Seven months since Hussein fell! Seven months!

Do you even have a clue?

What do you guys expect after, what, 23/24 years of dictatorship?

Should the Soviet Union come back, you think? After all, things are a bloody mess there right now, and they've had even longer to get their act together since the USSR collapsed.

Iraq is a nation where every voice of dissent was murdered. They have no grasp on democratic self-rule. Anyone who might have is dead. (edited to add: ) or they had fled to where? Democratic nations!

They are surrounded by nations that are hell-bent on preventing democracy in the middle east. These are people who are just as jealously possessive of their consolidated power as Hussein. Iraq does not have the luxury of geographic isolation in which to nurture democracy like the U.S. did. It is going to be a long, hard, uphill battle.

And you want us to walk away so we will fulfill your gloom and doom prophecies. Leave them hanging so they will inevitably fail.

Jesus H. Christ.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Luke T.
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people expect positive results.

Seven months since Hussein fell! Seven months!

Do you even have a clue?

What do you guys expect after, what, 23/24 years of dictatorship?

Should the Soviet Union come back, you think? After all, things are a bloody mess there right now, and they've had even longer to get their act together since the USSR collapsed.

Iraq is a nation where every voice of dissent was murdered. They have no grasp on democratic self-rule. Anyone who might have is dead.

They are surrounded by nations that are hell-bent on preventing democracy in the middle east. These are people who are just as jealously possessive of their consolidated power as Hussein. Iraq does not have the luxury of geographic isolation in which to nurture democracy like the U.S. did. It is going to be a long, hard, uphill battle.

And you want us to walk away so we will fulfill your gloom and doom prophecies. Leave them hanging so they will inevitably fail.

Jesus H. Christ.


I dont disagree with you Luke, and I supported the liberation of the Iraqi people and the removal of Saddam Hussien. But I dont think planning for the after math was as comprehensive as it should have been.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tony



I dont disagree with you Luke, and I supported the liberation of the Iraqi people and the removal of Saddam Hussien. But I dont think planning for the after math was as comprehensive as it should have been.

That's another lie they want you to believe. They just don't like the kind of pre-planning that was done, i.e. setting up a business infrastructure. Capitalism. Goes hand in hand with democracy.

[richardm]

There was an Iraqi interviewed on the BBC news this lunchtime. He had been in his house near the Italian barracks when they were blown up, injuring him and several members of his family.

He had been asked a question along the lines of "Don't you just wish these foreigners would go away?", and replied with words to the effect of "No, we don't want the Italians to leave, and we don't want the Americans to leave either. They have done more for us than Saddam did in thirty years."

I must admit, it was so at odds with what we're repeatedly told about the dire state within Iraq that I was quite taken aback.

[Graham]

LukeT

Regardless of what Crossbow and the others think, it looks like George Bush is about to do exactly that - turn tail and pull out as quickly as he can and d**n the consequences.

If so, that would tend to suggest that he didn't plan the whole thing too well, no?

Graham

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Luke T.
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people expect positive results.

...

Should the Soviet Union come back, you think? After all, things are a bloody mess there right now, and they've had even longer to get their act together since the USSR collapsed.

...

And you want us to walk away so we will fulfill your gloom and doom prophecies. Leave them hanging so they will inevitably fail.

Jesus H. Christ.

Good point. If we had gone in to help the Soviet Union, perhaps we would still be there 13 years later. Is there a lesson to be learned here?

Perhaps the Iraqis can build their own country without the US. It is THEIR country, after all.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Graham
LukeT

Regardless of what Crossbow and the others think, it looks like George Bush is about to do exactly that - turn tail and pull out as quickly as he can and d**n the consequences.

If so, that would tend to suggest that he didn't plan the whole thing too well, no?

Graham

Chess is a different game than checkers. Someone needs to explain the concept of "thinking ahead" to Bush.

[Graham]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Chess is a different game than checkers. Someone needs to explain the concept of "thinking ahead" to Bush.

Maybe you could point him to my sig line . . .

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Luke T.


That's another lie they want you to believe. They just don't like the kind of pre-planning that was done, i.e. setting up a business infrastructure. Capitalism. Goes hand in hand with democracy.

Maybe they should have planned for security, food, running water, adequate medical support, education, employment etc... (you know, kind of things that go hand in hand with democracy) before they started salivating over how much money Halliburton could get out of it.

[Skeptic]

What amazes me here is the utter defeatism. The "logic" seems to be: "well, this is hard to do and success is not guaranteed, so it's probably not worth doing anyway, so let's quit now and cut our losses."

I think that Bush is partially to blame here, actually. Remember that Winston Churchill was elected despite promising his people nothing but blood, swear and tears--and perhaps precisely BECAUSE of that. When you mislead people into thinking that establishing democracy in Iraq is going to be easy, that toppling Saddam is the SAME THING as establishing a working democracy in Iraq, no wonder they are shocked by any setback.

In a sense, the amazing victory of the coalition forces (despite the "chattering classes" ranting about a "quagmire"--LE FIGARO had a big cover showing American soldiers in a sandstorm asking "is the US's military advance stalled?" still on sale the day Baghdad fell) deluded people into thinking that the rest of the job would be as easy. After WWII, nobody deluded themselves establishing democracy in Germany or Japan would be easy, but at least it was easy compared to the war!

But, let us look at things a bit more closely. ALL of the terrorist attacks are in a specific, small location--the "sunni triangle", Baghdad and Tikrit. And, there, too, they are the work of only a small minority of Ba'athists. While the Sunnis are, indeed, worried that a democracy will have them lose power (a dangerous thing in the middle east), most Sunnis are quite happy to be rid of Saddam, thank you. It is only a small minority (the terrorists) of a minority group (the ex-Ba'athists) of a minority (the Sunnis) in Iraq that are fighting the Americans, not to mention the fact that many of the terrorists are probably foreigners, e.g. Iranians, Palestinians, or Syrians sympathetic to the "death to the USA" movement.

So why are the still fighting? Who are their allies? Who is describing this minority-of-a-minority-of-a-minority fight as "the Iraqi people rising against the colonialist occupier"? Not any Iraqis (they know better); not even any other Arabs or Muslims, except perhaps Iran and Syria. As usual, those who are getting hysterical are the "chattering classes": the comfortable left in the west, who would use any setback to smear Bush, beliving that if they will say the magic words ("Vietnam" and "Quagmire") often enough, it will be so. What will happen to Iraq if the US gets up and leaves? Who cares! It's all those insignificant, third-world brown people anyway. What's IMPORTANT is that we embarrased Bush...

THIS is how the terrorists plan to win: not militarily, but politically, by using their unwitting "useful idiots" allies in the west to mis-describe them as a "popular" uprising against an "imperialist" force (actually, for 90% of the Iraqis, these people are about as popular as a dead donkey that was left out in the desert too long), and then force Bush out of office. The next step is to make America run away when the next president "accelerates the exit strategy", as running away is euphemistically called nowadays.

I think Bush made a major mistake in PR by underemphasizing the task ahead, with things like declaring the "end of combat operations". But PR aside, the game is worth the candle, and, yes, the "useful idiots" demanding the US run away ARE supporting the terrorists. In fact, they are the terrorists' main--and only--hope for victory.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Graham


Maybe you could point him to my sig line . . .


you spelled damn wrong. :)

[tedly]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Capitalism. Goes hand in hand with democracy.
Counter-examples, Shanghai, Nazi Germany, South Africa..... I don't know enough about world history and politics.

Capitalism actually gets along very well with a Fascist or totalitarian government right or left.

Modern one-man one-vote democracy was invented by the North American first people, and consciously copied by the colonists. The first people were, if anything, socialists; quite lacking in the modern concept of property.

European democracy has a history going back 2000 years before the development of capitalism.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Skeptic
But, let us look at things a bit more closely. ALL of the terrorist attacks are in a specific, small location--the "sunni triangle", Baghdad and Tikrit. And, there, too, they are the work of only a small minority of Ba'athists. While the Sunnis are, indeed, worried that a democracy will have them lose power (a dangerous thing in the middle east), most Sunnis are quite happy to be rid of Saddam, thank you. It is only a small minority (the terrorists) of a minority group (the ex-Ba'athists) of a minority (the Sunnis) in Iraq that are fighting the Americans, not to mention the fact that many of the terrorists are probably foreigners, e.g. Iranians, Palestinians, or Syrians sympathetic to the "death to the USA" movement.

So why are the still fighting? Who are their allies? Who is describing this minority-of-a-minority-of-a-minority fight as "the Iraqi people rising against the colonialist occupier"? Not any Iraqis (they know better); not even any other Arabs or Muslims, except perhaps Iran and Syria. As usual, those who are getting hysterical are the "chattering classes": the comfortable left in the west, who would use any setback to smear Bush, beliving that if they will say the magic words ("Vietnam" and "Quagmire") often enough, it will be so. What will happen to Iraq if the US gets up and leaves? Who cares! It's all those insignificant, third-world brown people anyway. What's IMPORTANT is that we embarrased Bush...

THIS is how the terrorists plan to win: not militarily, but politically, by using their unwitting "useful idiots" allies in the west to mis-describe them as a "popular" uprising against an "imperialist" force (actually, for 90% of the Iraqis, these people are about as popular as a dead donkey that was left out in the desert too long), and then force Bush out of office. The next step is to make America run away when the next president "accelerates the exit strategy", as running away is euphemistically called nowadays.


Baathists, terrorists, Sunnis. That's right, stick another label on it so we can categorize it for our simple minds. In Vietnam, we fought "Commie gooks with no regard for human life", and guess what? They beat us! Perhaps we should consider another label which may be more descriptive: freedom fighters casting out unwanted aggressors. Sorry if this upsets someone's apple cart, but things are not that simple in Iraq and that should have been obvious before we ever got started. So if you call it "defeatism" rather than reality, I'll call you Pollyanna.

[demon]

The hawk apologists, like Hitchens and Aaronovitch (uk) , seem to be caught up in 'their' conception of this western invasion - as if they could will it to be in their image - rather than accepting the invasion we actually have to deal with, drawn in by the people, like Blair and Bush (PNAC), who we actually have to lead us.

The credibility of both the invasion and invader were well-known before 2003 so there is no excuse for this flight of fantasy apologia.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What amazes me here is the utter defeatism. The "logic" seems to be: "well, this is hard to do and success is not guaranteed, so it's probably not worth doing anyway, so let's quit now and cut our losses."

I think that Bush is partially to blame here, actually. Remember that Winston Churchill was elected despite promising his people nothing but blood, swear and tears--and perhaps precisely BECAUSE of that. When you mislead people into thinking that establishing democracy in Iraq is going to be easy, that toppling Saddam is the SAME THING as establishing a working democracy in Iraq, no wonder they are shocked by any setback.

In a sense, the amazing victory of the coalition forces (despite the "chattering classes" ranting about a "quagmire"--LE FIGARO had a big cover showing American soldiers in a sandstorm asking "is the US's military advance stalled?" still on sale the day Baghdad fell) deluded people into thinking that the rest of the job would be as easy. After WWII, nobody deluded themselves establishing democracy in Germany or Japan would be easy, but at least it was easy compared to the war!

But, let us look at things a bit more closely. ALL of the terrorist attacks are in a specific, small location--the "sunni triangle", Baghdad and Tikrit. And, there, too, they are the work of only a small minority of Ba'athists. While the Sunnis are, indeed, worried that a democracy will have them lose power (a dangerous thing in the middle east), most Sunnis are quite happy to be rid of Saddam, thank you. It is only a small minority (the terrorists) of a minority group (the ex-Ba'athists) of a minority (the Sunnis) in Iraq that are fighting the Americans, not to mention the fact that many of the terrorists are probably foreigners, e.g. Iranians, Palestinians, or Syrians sympathetic to the "death to the USA" movement.

So why are the still fighting? Who are their allies? Who is describing this minority-of-a-minority-of-a-minority fight as "the Iraqi people rising against the colonialist occupier"? Not any Iraqis (they know better); not even any other Arabs or Muslims, except perhaps Iran and Syria. As usual, those who are getting hysterical are the "chattering classes": the comfortable left in the west, who would use any setback to smear Bush, beliving that if they will say the magic words ("Vietnam" and "Quagmire") often enough, it will be so. What will happen to Iraq if the US gets up and leaves? Who cares! It's all those insignificant, third-world brown people anyway. What's IMPORTANT is that we embarrased Bush...

THIS is how the terrorists plan to win: not militarily, but politically, by using their unwitting "useful idiots" allies in the west to mis-describe them as a "popular" uprising against an "imperialist" force (actually, for 90% of the Iraqis, these people are about as popular as a dead donkey that was left out in the desert too long), and then force Bush out of office. The next step is to make America run away when the next president "accelerates the exit strategy", as running away is euphemistically called nowadays.

I think Bush made a major mistake in PR by underemphasizing the task ahead, with things like declaring the "end of combat operations". But PR aside, the game is worth the candle, and, yes, the "useful idiots" demanding the US run away ARE supporting the terrorists. In fact, they are the terrorists' main--and only--hope for victory.

First, a point of fact - all of the attacks are not in the Sunni triangle. The attack that killed 26 Itallians, for instance, was in Nasiryah - which is in the British zone to the south.

Second, the CIA are apparently describing this "minority-of-a-minority-of-a-minority fight as "the Iraqi people rising against the colonialist occupier" or words to that effect.

The report, an "appraisal of situation" commissioned by the CIA director, George Tenet, and written by the CIA station chief in Baghdad, said that the insurgency was gaining ground among the population, and already numbers in the tens of thousands.

One military intelligence assessment now estimates the insurgents' strength at 50,000. Analysts cautioned that such a figure was speculative, but it does indicate a deep-rooted revolt on a far greater scale than the Pentagon had led the administration to believe.

An intelligence source in Washington familiar with the CIA report described it as a "bleak assessment that the resistance is broad, strong and getting stronger".

"It says we are going to lose the situation unless there is a rapid and dramatic change of course," the source said.

"There are thousands in the resistance - not just a core of Ba'athists. They are in the thousands, and growing every day. Not all those people are actually firing, but providing support, shelter and all that."

Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1083847,00.html)

Or do you condescendingly dismiss the CIA the same way you dismiss everyone else who disagrees with you. "Chattering Classes" indeed!

Finally, by some accounts, it is no longer just the "useful idiots" demanding the US run away - it seems Bush is starting to like the idea too.

Graham

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Good point. If we had gone in to help the Soviet Union, perhaps we would still be there 13 years later. Is there a lesson to be learned here?

Perhaps the Iraqis can build their own country without the US. It is THEIR country, after all.

In both cases of Iraq and post-USSR, we are talking about massive power vacuums. That is the consequence of the collapse of a totalitarian regime.

And when those who offerred the best hope for recovery are dead or have fled, then outside assistance is necessary.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Maybe they should have planned for security, food, running water, adequate medical support, education, employment etc... (you know, kind of things that go hand in hand with democracy) before they started salivating over how much money Halliburton could get out of it.

And all of those things take time. And they are happening. You just don't hear much about it in the press. I wonder why....

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony



you spelled damn wrong. :)

The word is question is darn, it is not damn, and Graham does the spelling and usage correct.

You, on the other hand, should know better by now than to attempt to correct the spelling of someone else; but if you like I can post some of your more famous spelling errors for everyone to evaluate.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Crossbow


The word is question is darn, it is not damn, and Graham does the spelling and usage correct.

You, on the other hand, should know better by now than to attempt to correct the spelling of someone else; but if you like I can post some of your more famous spelling errors for everyone to evaluate.

Psst - I think the smiley means it was a joke . . . ;)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I think that Bush is partially to blame here, actually. Remember that Winston Churchill was elected despite promising his people nothing but blood, swear and tears--and perhaps precisely BECAUSE of that. When you mislead people into thinking that establishing democracy in Iraq is going to be easy, that toppling Saddam is the SAME THING as establishing a working democracy in Iraq, no wonder they are shocked by any setback.



I agree with this. But I think Bush thought convincing the American people ahead of time to a seriously long term commitment was too hard a sell.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I agree with this. But I think Bush thought convincing the American people ahead of time to a seriously long term commitment was too hard a sell.

Do you believe then that he deliberately misled the people? That would seem to be the implication of your statement above.

Graham

NB It's not an agressive or agenda-ised question, alright? I'm just trying to get your opinion.

[Skeptic]

Baathists, terrorists, Sunnis. That's right, stick another label on it so we can categorize it for our simple minds.

That seems to be necessary, considering the fact you cannot seem to tell the difference between "tiny violent minority attacking Americans with the hope of getting the useful idiots in the west on their side" and "the people are uprising against the Americans".

In Vietnam, we fought "Commie gooks with no regard for human life", and guess what? They beat us!

Yes, I keep forgetting: once you lost ONE war, you must quit all others the moment there is any trouble. Pre-emptive surrender and running away are the only options left to you if you REALLY "understood the lessons of Vietnam".

It's the King's Arthur strategy: "run away! run away!".

Perhaps we should consider another label which may be more descriptive: freedom fighters casting out unwanted aggressors.

Not if you know anything about the 90%+ of Iraqis who want the Americans to stay. But, as I was saying, that's precisely what the bombers want you to think: that their clique is "the people", and their attempt to reinstate Saddam in power is "the wish of the Iraqi" against the "imperialistic invaders".

Sorry if this upsets someone's apple cart, but things are not that simple in Iraq

Indeed they aren't. Which is why seeing these attacks, in a tiny territory and of few people, as what "the Iraqi people" want is utterly stupid.

and that should have been obvious before we ever got started. So if you call it "defeatism" rather than reality, I'll call you Pollyanna.

Frankly, I don't care what you call me.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Graham


Do you believe then that he deliberately misled the people? That would seem to be the implication of your statement above.

Graham

NB It's not an agressive or agenda-ised question, alright? I'm just trying to get your opinion.

No, I do not think he misled the people. He just did not emphasize how long it would take. Apparently, judging by some of the posts in this topic and elsewhere on this forum, some people misled themselves how long it would take.

[Luke T.]

Maybe Bush thought the American people were smart enough to realize that, hey, it aint' gonna be quick. It isn't like today we topple Hussein, and tomorrow there's a new president and everything is humming along. As Kramer would say, "That's crazy talk!"

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Luke T.


No, I do not think he misled the people.

So when he stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier and proclaimed that the major hostilities were over, he did not mean to imply that there was an end in sight?

No, technically he never really said it was going to be over soon, but when you make a big announcement that the main hostilities are done, only a month after they were begun, you can hardly hold it against the people to expect this an indication that things should be wrapping up soon.

You can hardly blame them for not expecting to hear casuality reports every day over 6 months later.

Sure, the military planners may have expected it. But in that case, you don't make a big celebration of the fact that "major Hostilities are Over! "

Of course it was to mislead the people into thinking that the worst was over.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Luke T.
And all of those things take time. And they are happening. You just don't hear much about it in the press. I wonder why....

Maybe 500 dead soldiers tends to bump it off the front page?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Maybe 500 dead soldiers tends to bump it off the front page?

You have hit the terrorist tactic right on the head.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Graham


First, a point of fact - all of the attacks are not in the Sunni triangle. The attack that killed 26 Itallians, for instance, was in Nasiryah - which is in the British zone to the south.

Second, the CIA are apparently describing this "minority-of-a-minority-of-a-minority fight as "the Iraqi people rising against the colonialist occupier" or words to that effect.



Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1083847,00.html)

Or do you condescendingly dismiss the CIA the same way you dismiss everyone else who disagrees with you. "Chattering Classes" indeed!

Finally, by some accounts, it is no longer just the "useful idiots" demanding the US run away - it seems Bush is starting to like the idea too.

Graham

Nowhere in the link is there anything even remotely supporting your conclusion that "Bush is starting to like the idea too." In fact, it implies Bush has not been fully informed of the situation.

The link merely states there are some who feel the transfer of power needs to be sped up and elections held sooner. I think this bears a risk of all-out civil war if we leave too soon.

Ask yourself, "Who has mortars and surface-to-air missiles and enough explosives to blow up buildings and munitions to carry out these attacks?" An average Iraqi citizen? I don't THINK so!

So who is behind it? The Iraqi people? I don't THINK so!

[Luke T.]

Do you think Hussein allowed his people to be so well-armed?

THINK!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Do you think Hussein allowed his people to be so well-armed?

THINK!

While terrorism and smuggled weapons are part of the problem, you can't discount the fact that after the fall of Baghdad, thousands of weapon caches were suddenly up for grabs.

The fact is, there are plenty of people with reason to hate American soldiers, and their numbers grow each time a civilian is gagged for criticising the coalition forces, or a civilian is killed, or a house is raided and women and children are bound while the house is trashed in a search for weapons that aren't there.

Weapons in Iraq makes security difficult (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/world/7030800.htm)

[c0rbin]

As Kramer would say, "That's crazy talk!"

"No, that's my brother: Crazy-Talk"

[Graham]

Originally posted by Luke T. Nowhere in the link is there anything even remotely supporting your conclusion that "Bush is starting to like the idea too." In fact, it implies Bush has not been fully informed of the situation.

Bush recalled Paul Bremer to the White House, gave him a boot up the ass and told him to hurry up the handover of control back to the Iraqis. This is in direct contrast to his previous position and negative responses to requests from other countries that he do exactly that.

In less dramatic terms, this suggests to me that he wants to pull out as quickly as possible with more regard for the speed of the withdawal than the consequences. Again, this is in contrast to his previous position.

The link merely states there are some who feel the transfer of power needs to be sped up and elections held sooner. I think this bears a risk of all-out civil war if we leave too soon.

I agree - it is too soon to leave. I am not convinced, however, that there will ever be a better time.

Ask yourself, "Who has mortars and surface-to-air missiles and enough explosives to blow up buildings and munitions to carry out these attacks?" An average Iraqi citizen? I don't THINK so!

So who is behind it? The Iraqi people? I don't THINK so! [/B]

As Mr Manifesto has pointed out, the Iraqi general population may not have had such arms before the invasion but some of them almost certainly do now.

I remember reading in TIME magazine (I can probably find it online if you really want me to) a list of known weapons stockpiles in Iraq and a note beside each to say whether or not it was guarded/controlled by US troops. There were a LOT of unattended weapons, IIRC.

Graham

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Baathists, terrorists, Sunnis. That's right, stick another label on it so we can categorize it for our simple minds.

That seems to be necessary, considering the fact you cannot seem to tell the difference between "tiny violent minority attacking Americans with the hope of getting the useful idiots in the west on their side" and "the people are uprising against the Americans".

In Vietnam, we fought "Commie gooks with no regard for human life", and guess what? They beat us!

Yes, I keep forgetting: once you lost ONE war, you must quit all others the moment there is any trouble. Pre-emptive surrender and running away are the only options left to you if you REALLY "understood the lessons of Vietnam".

It's the King's Arthur strategy: "run away! run away!".

Perhaps we should consider another label which may be more descriptive: freedom fighters casting out unwanted aggressors.

Not if you know anything about the 90%+ of Iraqis who want the Americans to stay. But, as I was saying, that's precisely what the bombers want you to think: that their clique is "the people", and their attempt to reinstate Saddam in power is "the wish of the Iraqi" against the "imperialistic invaders".

Sorry if this upsets someone's apple cart, but things are not that simple in Iraq

Indeed they aren't. Which is why seeing these attacks, in a tiny territory and of few people, as what "the Iraqi people" want is utterly stupid.

A "tiny minority" bumped us off in Vietnam because of logic like yours. A) You - and everyone else - have no idea who is attacking us because we didn't catch them. HELLO, you are guessing. B) We don't understand the Iraqis, and they don't understand us. C) There is no reliable poll showing 90% support for American occupation. If you have such a source, please provide it. D) We are not at war, we are at peace. Bush said so on the aircraft carrier. So we can't surrender.

The military lessons to learn from the war in Vietnam are: not to underestimate the enemy; to have a clear definition of victory; and to have a realistic estimate of the situation. The political lessons are: not to sacrifice American blood for a cause which has little or no immediate impact on America, and American can be wrong. The moral lesson is that America should not intercede in the internal politics of a foreign country.

The lesson is not: we will always lose. But there are some games we can't win, and hearts and minds is one of those. Or is it just that if we had you around to run things in Vietnam, we would have scored a big W instead of an L? Or maybe it was those peaceniks fault we lost 50,000 men in Vietnam? Try analysis instead of labeling.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


While terrorism and smuggled weapons are part of the problem, you can't discount the fact that after the fall of Baghdad, thousands of weapon caches were suddenly up for grabs.

The fact is, there are plenty of people with reason to hate American soldiers, and their numbers grow each time a civilian is gagged for criticising the coalition forces, or a civilian is killed, or a house is raided and women and children are bound while the house is trashed in a search for weapons that aren't there.

Weapons in Iraq makes security difficult (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/world/7030800.htm)

Yes, I considered that possibility, and I still don't buy the theory that the average Iraqi citizen is behind these attacks. These attacks suggest training in the weapons and tactics used. (edited to add: ) Yes, I am aware that many Iraqis served in the military, but there is also far more evidence suggesting these attacks are being carried out by muslim extremists from Syria and Iran and by Hussein supporters. (end edit)

I do not doubt, though, that more and more average Iraqis are supporting the U.S. leaving. I discussed the attackers' master plan in another topic here, and it is working well.

But this in no way means the Iraqi people favor the people behind these attacks more. But if we leave, then those who are behind the attacks will win. Because then it really will be Iraqi citizens vs. whoever is behind the attacks, and we will see then that the citizens do not know how to handles these weapons effectively.

There is an interesting quote in the article you linked.


"We think our initial estimate of 600,000 tons is low," Brig. Gen. Larry Davis said. "We think 600,000 tons could be as much as 1 million tons. They had an inordinate amount of ammunition in this country."

Now if the inspections had been so effective, how come we didn't even know how many standard munitions Hussein possessed, never mind WMDs?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Yes, I considered that possibility, and I still don't buy the theory that the average Iraqi citizen is behind these attacks. These attacks suggest training in the weapons and tactics used. (edited to add: ) ... I do not doubt, though, that more and more average Iraqis are supporting the U.S. leaving. I discussed the attackers' master plan in another topic here, and it is working well.

But this in no way means the Iraqi people favor the people behind these attacks more. But if we leave, then those who are behind the attacks will win. Because then it really will be Iraqi citizens vs. whoever is behind the attacks, and we will see then that the citizens do not know how to handles these weapons effectively.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We think our initial estimate of 600,000 tons is low," Brig. Gen. Larry Davis said. "We think 600,000 tons could be as much as 1 million tons. They had an inordinate amount of ammunition in this country."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1. I agree that the "average" Iraqi is not attacking US forces. You wouldn't expect them to.

2. Remember Powell's 100-500 tons of WMDs? That turned out to be absolutely nothing. Don't put much stock in the 600,000 ton estimate either. It is simply and guess and means little or nothing. They want you to conclude that there is perhaps a half million tons of "missing" munitions, perhaps buried in the sand, which is a crock. No one knows, that is a fact.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Luke T.
...

Now if the inspections had been so effective, how come we didn't even know how many standard munitions Hussein possessed, never mind WMDs?

Excuse me Luke, but I just have to jump in here.

You cannot blame the UN inspectors for not correctly assessing what Iraq had in the way of conventional weapons because they were never tasked with the assessment of Iraqi conventional mutions.

However, a question I would like answered (although it will probably never happen) since the CIA had so many sources on the Iraq Inspection Teams (and other sources and methods as well), why was the CIA (which did have the job of evaluating Iraqi military equipment) estimates off by some 40%?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DrChinese


1. I agree that the "average" Iraqi is not attacking US forces. You wouldn't expect them to.

2. Remember Powell's 100-500 tons of WMDs? That turned out to be absolutely nothing. Don't put much stock in the 600,000 ton estimate either. It is simply and guess and means little or nothing. They want you to conclude that there is perhaps a half million tons of "missing" munitions, perhaps buried in the sand, which is a crock. No one knows, that is a fact.

Well, it is crucial to the theory that average Iraqis are behind the attacks on whether or not there are unaccounted for munitions lying around for anyone to pick up.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Excuse me Luke, but I just have to jump in here.

You cannot blame the UN inspectors for not correctly assessing what Iraq had in the way of conventional weapons because they were never tasked with the assessment of Iraqi conventional mutions.

However, a question I would like answered (although it will probably never happen) since the CIA had so many sources on the Iraq Inspection Teams (and other sources and methods as well), why was the CIA (which did have the job of evaluating Iraqi military equipment) estimates off by some 40%?

Well, as Dr. Chinese just said, no one knows how much they were off.

And the answer is in your question, I think. The U.N. inspection teams were never allowed free access to Hussein's weapons caches, palaces, etc. They were blocked at every turn. And they gave up in 1998. And I doubt sales from France and Germany and China and others tapered off between then and now. So of course they will be off.

[Luke T.]

In another topic on here, I said:


The master plan of the people killing our soldiers in Iraq is simple.

Some of their attacks have been against our soldiers, and some have been against what anyone would consider "good guys." Fellow Iraqis and U.N. personnel and people there to offer humanitarian aid. You would think these attacks against innocent people would turn the population against the attackers and in favor of Americans. But the attackers are in this for the long haul. They hope to make our soldiers so tense and uptight that they will begin to overreact and on a hair-trigger. And that is what is happening. The American media, and I am sure the media in the Middle East, is happy to pounce on stories where American troops kill little Iraqi girls at a checkpoint. It is the hope of the attackers that eventually the Iraqi people will turn against the Americans for these deaths. And the media is all to happy to help, willingly and unwittingly.

I believe this is exactly what is happening.

I'm a retired Navy guy, so I don't know all that much about U.S. Army tactics, but there is something that has been pinging around my brain since this whole mess started.

I keep recalling a conversation I had with a Vietnamese coworker who escaped from Viet Nam when he was around 11 years old. He was telling me how every time a guerilla attacked a nearby U.S. Marine encampment, his dad would climb up on the roof of their hut with a rifle. The reason was that when the Marines were attacked like that, they would watch the direction the attacker would run and then aerial bomb whatever village he disappeared into. My coworker's dad climbed up with a rifle so that he could shoot anyone who he saw running down the road toward their village whenever they heard gunshots or explosions near the Marine base. This prevented their village from being bombed many times.

Now I don't know if our tactics have changed much. I sure hope so. I worry sometimes that we rely too much on our gadgets, and I worry that the guerillas in Iraq are deliberately provoking our troops in civilian-intensive environments so that our troops start firing wildly and hit civilians.

Master plan, I tell you.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Well, it is crucial to the theory that average Iraqis are behind the attacks on whether or not there are unaccounted for munitions lying around for anyone to pick up.

All that we need to know about the "average" Iraqi is that we don't really know him/her at all. And vice versa for their understanding of us. How could they? How could we? Our lives and history are far too different. We project our concepts onto them and are surprised at the results.

Which is why - now that we have deposed Saddam - we need to make a quick and graceful exit. I don't even mind if Bush declares victory a few more times, just get us out.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Well, it is crucial to the theory that average Iraqis are behind the attacks on whether or not there are unaccounted for munitions lying around for anyone to pick up.

What does "average Iraqi" mean, anyway?

Obviously, the normal everyday joe wife-and-two-kids average Iraqi guy is not the one out there setting up ambushes and detonating car bombs - that's just silly. Normal, everyday people just don't do stuff like that.

The same, however, could be said of any guerilla or terrorist conflict. For instance, in the Noirthern Ireland situation, the vast majority of the population went about their lives doing their everyday thing throughout the entire conflict.

Such campaigns are typically controlled by a hard core of lunatics (like Gerry Adams, or Osama Bin Laden) and manned by disenfranchised young, males brainwashed into fanatical support of "the cause" by growing up in an environment of hatred and violence.

So let's check the boxes for Iraq:

Hard core of lunatics - check (Hussein or Bin Laden - take your pick)

Disenfranchised young males - check (the entire stock of ex-Iraqi army guys, for instance)

Environment of hatred and violence - check (both before and after the USSO, invasion, IMO)

So, are the "average Iraqis" behind the attack - no. Does that mean anything much really - no again I'm afraid.

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Now I don't know if our tactics have changed much. I sure hope so. I worry sometimes that we rely too much on our gadgets, and I worry that the guerillas in Iraq are deliberately provoking our troops in civilian-intensive environments so that our troops start firing wildly and hit civilians.

Master plan, I tell you.

This I agree with. The question, however, is what to do about it and how to combat it.

The harder you strike back, the more innocent casualties, the more you play into their hands. You can't fight this kind of war without killing civilians but every civilian you kill creates a dozen more real enemies.

At the same time, you can't not fight back because they'll just keep coming and coming and killing and killing until you do - or leave.

Lose the patriotism for a moment, assess the situation from a tactical perspective - what are you going to do?

Graham

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Master plan, I tell you.


Like Saddam's "master plan"? I think it is typical American projection/paranoia onto a group we understand so little. For there to be a master plan there needs to be an organization, and that does not appear likely. We are having to invent the idea of "outside agitators" (where have we heard that beore) for the "master plan" theory to make sense. In that theory, the outside agitators are Al Qaeda or _________ who want to get a piece of the American infidels.

Riiiiiiiiight.

[demon]

"And the answer is in your question, I think. The U.N. inspection teams were never allowed free access to Hussein's weapons caches, palaces, etc. They were blocked at every turn. And they gave up in 1998."

This is just inaccurate. Why do you continue with crap like this?
The inspectors did not give up in 1998, they were withdrawn by the UN prior to Operation Desert Fox.
As for the inspectors being blocked at every turn from doing their duty, this just does not tally with the documentation of the inspections and the experience of the inspectors.
It is incredible that this sort of misinformation is still doing the rounds and that you think you can still get away with using these blatent CNN, Fox type soundbites to justify a war based on lies.
Why does the whole justification for this sorry saga rely on half truths and ommissions at every turn?

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Graham


Such campaigns are typically controlled by a hard core of lunatics (like Gerry Adams, or Osama Bin Laden) and manned by disenfranchised young, males brainwashed into fanatical support of "the cause" by growing up in an environment of hatred and violence.

So let's check the boxes for Iraq:

Hard core of lunatics - check (Hussein or Bin Laden - take your pick)

Disenfranchised young males - check (the entire stock of ex-Iraqi army guys, for instance)

Environment of hatred and violence - check (both before and after the USSO, invasion, IMO)

So, are the "average Iraqis" behind the attack - no. Does that mean anything much really - no again I'm afraid.

Graham

Couldn't agree more. It's also worth pointing out that in Northern Ireland about 2/3 of the population were firm opponents of the IRA and prepared to use terrorist methods against catholic targets. Despite this opposition the IRA campaign continued for nearly 30 years. What many people here don't seem to comprehend is that guerrilla/terrorist campaigns don't need overwhelming support from the population as a whole, aquiescence of a section of the people will do.

That said, having been dragged into this mess by the lies, self delusion and incompetence of US and UK politicians I think we must be prepared to invest time money and lives in an effort to create some kind of stability in the country. We may fail of course.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DrChinese



Like Saddam's "master plan"? I think it is typical American projection/paranoia onto a group we understand so little. For there to be a master plan there needs to be an organization, and that does not appear likely. We are having to invent the idea of "outside agitators" (where have we heard that beore) for the "master plan" theory to make sense. In that theory, the outside agitators are Al Qaeda or _________ who want to get a piece of the American infidels.

Riiiiiiiiight.


So you don't believe there are outside agitators in Iraq? That is pretty naive.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by demon
It is incredible that this sort of misinformation is still doing the rounds and that you think you can still get away with using these blatent CNN, Fox type soundbites to justify a war based on lies.
Why does the whole justification for this sorry saga rely on half truths and ommissions at every turn?

Because if we drew the line at facts known with a fair degree of certainty, then we never would have gone to war in Iraq. Exaggeration of the threats, and spinning of the historical record, was absolutely necessary to justify the war to the average American.

FDR did not need spin to convince Congress to declare war in 1941. Why is that? There was agreement as to the basic facts.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Luke T.


So you don't believe there are outside agitators in Iraq? That is pretty naive.

Sure there are, and most of them are American.

:D

[Skeptic]

I agree - it is too soon to leave. I am not convinced, however, that there will ever be a better time.

This sort of thing annoys me. God knows I'm not a fan of the "positive thinking" bullsh*t, but here you really have two options: do your best to assure there will be a better time, or excuse your inaction and running away by saying that "well, things will never be better there, anyway."

There are three things wrong with this view.

1). It is a totally emotional issue--it is not as if you know "things will never be better" there based on any reliable evidence.

2). It does nothing but allow one the self-satisfaction for every failure. Bush's dream of a democratic, peaceful Iraq is of course hard to achieve (to say the least). But even partial democratization or freedom would be better than none, and even a corrupt regime would be better than Saddam. Would that be a "failure" and "proof" that things are "no better"? According to you, probably. According to most Iraqis, probably not.

3). I can't help but wondering: you wouldn't say that "things would never be better" in, say, Russia or Irealand. But those middle-eastern types... you can't expect much from THEM, eh? We need to hold them to a lower standard. They LIKE opression and strongmen, obviously--or so their "leaders" say...

[Graham]

Originally posted by Nikk


Couldn't agree more. It's also worth pointing out that in Northern Ireland about 2/3 of the population were firm opponents of the IRA and prepared to use terrorist methods against catholic targets. Despite this opposition the IRA campaign continued for nearly 30 years. What many people here don't seem to comprehend is that guerrilla/terrorist campaigns don't need overwhelming support from the population as a whole, aquiescence of a section of the people will do.

That said, having been dragged into this mess by the lies, self delusion and incompetence of US and UK politicians I think we must be prepared to invest time money and lives in an effort to create some kind of stability in the country. We may fail of course.

And remember that more than 50% of the NI population were definitely, decidedly in favour of the occupiers. Remember to that, of modern times, that the British pumped money into NI at a ferocious rate - supporting all sorts of social and development projects, not to mention welfare and healthcare, etc.

Even with the full support of the majority of the population and a relatively begnign regime, the British still couldn't subdue the terrorists and were, eventually, essentially forced to concede.

That's one perspective, anyway. Another perspective is that for 25 or 30 years the same methods were tried over and over again and continued to fail. A new method was tried, new thinkng was applied and now we have had a prolonged period of (relative) peace. It's a bitter enough peace for many people, paid for in blood, repressed anger and existing in defiance of any normal standard of justice but at least it's peace - people (and occupying soldiers are people too) are no longer dying on the streets.

What methods are the occupiers applying in Iraq? How long will it be before they acknowledge that they're not working and try something else? Or am I misinterpreting something?

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by Luke T.


So you don't believe there are outside agitators in Iraq? That is pretty naive.

Just out of interst, are you ignoring me for personal reasons or is it just easier to respond to someone more fanatical?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by demon
"And the answer is in your question, I think. The U.N. inspection teams were never allowed free access to Hussein's weapons caches, palaces, etc. They were blocked at every turn. And they gave up in 1998."

This is just inaccurate. Why do you continue with crap like this?
The inspectors did not give up in 1998, they were withdrawn by the UN prior to Operation Desert Fox.


Actually, they may have been withdrawn, but Iraq had stopped cooperation with the inspections at that point. (So the inspectors were pretty much useless.)

Originally posted by demon
As for the inspectors being blocked at every turn from doing their duty, this just does not tally with the documentation of the inspections and the experience of the inspectors.
It is incredible that this sort of misinformation is still doing the rounds and that you think you can still get away with using these blatent CNN, Fox type soundbites to justify a war based on lies.
Why does the whole justification for this sorry saga rely on half truths and ommissions at every turn?

Why don't we go right to Blix for his opinion? See: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1064142126875&call_pageid=968332188492

The reality is that the Iraqis did become rattled at the end of January, and they came up with all kinds of new ideas. Cooperation was suppose to be immediate, active and unconditional, and one could not say it was immediate because in December, they had this long, long declaration, and that was a disappointment, terrible, it was. We said, 'you're just copying old stuff'... And it was almost like an affront; they also talked about so-called disarmament issues. There was a tone of arrogance in it. And we were haggling about the U2 planes and we were haggling about the interviews (of scientists), so they dragged their feet.


So Blix indicated that the initial documentation provided by Iraq didn't give what was required, and they didn't give cooperation with scientists (which was required). Sounds like Iraq was interferring (if not blocking) the inspection process, considering they had to give "immediate, active and unconditional" support.

Of course, what would Blix know? He was only the chief arms inspector.

Of course, I do want to point out that this is all about WMD, and had no relevance to the current terrorism (which involves conventional arms.)

[Graham]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I agree - it is too soon to leave. I am not convinced, however, that there will ever be a better time.

This sort of thing annoys me. God knows I'm not a fan of the "positive thinking" bulls**t, but here you really have two options: do your best to assure there will be a better time, or excuse your inaction and running away by saying that "well, things will never be better there, anyway."

There are three things wrong with this view.

1). It is a totally emotional issue--it is not as if you know "things will never be better" there based on any reliable evidence.

2). It does nothing but allow one the self-satisfaction for every failure. Bush's dream of a democratic, peaceful Iraq is of course hard to achieve (to say the least). But even partial democratization or freedom would be better than none, and even a corrupt regime would be better than Saddam. Would that be a "failure" and "proof" that things are "no better"? According to you, probably. According to most Iraqis, probably not.

3). I can't help but wondering: you wouldn't say that "things would never be better" in, say, Russia or Irealand. But those middle-eastern types... you can't expect much from THEM, eh? We need to hold them to a lower standard. They LIKE opression and strongmen, obviously--or so their "leaders" say...

The whole point is that things never did get better in Ireland. Amongst other things, I saw the 18 / 19 year old British soldiers at the checkpoints pointing their rifles at cars full of families looking scared as s**t that one of us might say boo to them.

You don't understand, IMO - this sort of war is a nightmare - it's strange and dark and there's no way out of it. People are trying to kill you and you don't know why. It's not that they shouldn't win - there is no way to win.

I take no satisfaction at the failure of the US mission in Iraq, none whatsoever (assuming it has actually failed, which is by no means confirmed yet). I just find the whole thing unutterably sad.

You say I have no evidence - name one nation that has ever managed to win this type of war - just one, I challenge you.

Graham

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Graham


Just out of interst, are you ignoring me for personal reasons or is it just easier to respond to someone more fanatical?

No, I'm not ignoring you. Sorry if I gave that impression. The truth is I am at work and typing this on the stealth. I have to keep clicking on other work-related windows and coming back, and I am jumping all over the forum. I thought I had replied to all of your responses to me. What did I miss?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Graham


This I agree with. The question, however, is what to do about it and how to combat it.

The harder you strike back, the more innocent casualties, the more you play into their hands. You can't fight this kind of war without killing civilians but every civilian you kill creates a dozen more real enemies.

At the same time, you can't not fight back because they'll just keep coming and coming and killing and killing until you do - or leave.

Lose the patriotism for a moment, assess the situation from a tactical perspective - what are you going to do?

Graham

Was this the one I missed? If so:

From a tactical perspective, I would have to tackle the problem from several angles.

First, out and out propaganda. Keep the Iraqi people informed of our goals/intentions. Air programs about how democracy works. Get them access to a free press. That is key. A free press.

Second, suit the training of the troops to the environment. I imagine the psychological impact of these attacks is the hardest thing to combat. It is perfectly understandable if our soldiers begin to eye every Iraqi with suspicion as a potential attacker. And the Iraqis are going to feel and respond to that suspicion.

Third, notify the surrounding regimes that if we discover they are complicit in the attacks, there will be hell to pay. And mean it.

Fourth, educate the American people. The President should be making regular public broadcasts about our goals and describing the milestones that have been achieved. Right now, most Americans probably aren't even aware there is a transitional government in place in Iraq. That things are not as chaotic as they seem. We are indeed making great progress.

That's just off the top of my head.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Was this the one I missed? If so:

From a tactical perspective, I would have to tackle the problem from several angles.

First, out and out propaganda. Keep the Iraqi people informed of our goals/intentions. Air programs about how democracy works. Get them access to a free press. That is key. A free press.

Second, suit the training of the troops to the environment. I imagine the psychological impact of these attacks is the hardest thing to combat. It is perfectly understandable if our soldiers begin to eye every Iraqi with suspicion as a potential attacker. And the Iraqis are going to feel and respond to that suspicion.

Third, notify the surrounding regimes that if we discover they are complicit in the attacks, there will be hell to pay. And mean it.

Fourth, educate the American people. The President should be making regular public broadcasts about our goals and describing the milestones that have been achieved. Right now, most Americans probably aren't even aware there is a transitional government in place in Iraq. That things are not as chaotic as they seem. We are indeed making great progress.

That's just off the top of my head.

I was just kidding about the ignoring thing really ;)

Anyway, what you've posted above is all very well, IMO (emphasise - IMO) but what you fail to address is the point you have yourself raised and myself and Nikk have actually agreed with - it's not the general population of Iraq you're dealing with. You can spread propaganda and educate til the cows come home, you can even get the majority of the population so much on your side that they view the situation as us (you and them) and them (everyone else) but you still won't beat the terrorists.

Even if you achieve all of your goals above, you will still have soldiers dying on the streets every day and civilians with them and you'll get blamed for it because you're the visible presence.

The British did all those things in NI and it never worked for them. For instance, there was always, in modern times, access to free press.

I used to be inclined to think that the only way to deal with this was ultimate force - no mercy, wipe 'em all out and anyone who associates with them, shelters them or even looks like them. I think Chechnya has given the lie to that idea though.

As for the surrounding regimes - you can't even muster enough troops to control Iraq and Afganistan at the same time - how do you propose to impose any meaningful punishment on half a dozen other countries as well? (and do so without causing still more resentment amongst the population, btw).

I learned in elementary school that empty threats like that just make your enemies all the braver (or cowardly, depending on your perspective).

I would genuinely love for someone to persuade me that the Iraq situation will be alright in the end, that it'll all work out. I'd be quite willing to sacrifice my personal dislike and see the Bush administration succeed utterly, if that were the prize. I just don't see it.

Apparently you, LukeT, and you, Skeptic, do - so persuade me.

Graham

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Graham


I would genuinely love for someone to persuade me that the Iraq situation will be alright in the end, that it'll all work out. I'd be quite willing to sacrifice my personal dislike and see the Bush administration succeed utterly, if that were the prize. I just don't see it.

Apparently you, LukeT, and you, Skeptic, do - so persuade me.

Graham

I think most of what has been expressed in this topic is opinion. The degree each opinion is based on fact is another matter of opinion. I also think most opinion is based on outlook. That could be a chicken-and-the-egg thing, I don't know. Has the past caused some to have a negative outlook for the future? Or has a negative disposition caused some to have a negative outlook of both the past and the future? Again, I don't know. All I know is that I have an optimisitic outlook on both the past and the future. While I acknowledge there are evils committed and lurking, I believe there is even more good.

I also believe that democracy is as certain as evolution. Just as it was inevitable that some ocean slime would one day walk the earth in human form, it is inevitable every nation will come to democracy. Democracy is currently the most evolved form of government. Those who don't evolve will perish from the earth.

I believe we have kicked off the necessary chain of events for democracy not only in Iraq, but all of the Middle East. I don't for a second think the final accomplishment will take place while Bush is still in office. Maybe not even while he is still alive and living in retirement.

I think there is a lot more bloodshed ahead. Both American and Iraqi. Right now, we are taking the bullets the citizens of Iraqi will take in even greater numbers after we have left. If I were a short-sighted person, I would be pessimistic about that.

So when you ask me to convince you it will be all right "in the end," I can only say it depends on how far you can see.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Graham

The British did all those things in NI and it never worked for them. For instance, there was always, in modern times, access to free press.


Northern Ireland was a very different beast than Iraq. The IRA had a definite and coherent political goal, and they communicated that goal to those they hoped to gain the support of and those they hoped to defeat. The Iraqi opposition, as such, has no coherent goal (kicking us out isn't coherent if you don't say what you're going to replace us with). Until relatively recently in the conflict the British were not working towards bettering the lives of catholics as well as protestants. The resentment against the British was not based on misperception, it was substantive (and don't forget, if you're aware already, that the pro-British UDA killed more people than the IRA). That gave the IRA a support base that lasted.

The insurgency in Iraq is probably funded in large part by the looting of the Iraqi central bank by Saddam and his followers: that money can't last forever, and they have no structure set up to maintain funding. Furthermore, the actions of radicals like threatening children, attacking Iraqi police stations (and BTW, the Iraqi police are doing a great job and have a lot of respect among the people) and red cross facilities, and killing innocent Iraqis are really turning the majority of the population against the radicals.


I would genuinely love for someone to persuade me that the Iraq situation will be alright in the end, that it'll all work out. I'd be quite willing to sacrifice my personal dislike and see the Bush administration succeed utterly, if that were the prize. I just don't see it.


Here's a more encouraging analysis of the situation in Iraq:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/679
and one on the war on terrorism more generally:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/453

I do not see success as assured, but I see it as attainable, and worth fighting for.

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by Luke T.


The link merely states there are some who feel the transfer of power needs to be sped up and elections held sooner. I think this bears a risk of all-out civil war if we leave too soon.
Of course pitting US trained iraqis against the resistance is, per definition, not civil war. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Luke T.
Ask yourself, "Who has mortars and surface-to-air missiles and enough explosives to blow up buildings and munitions to carry out these attacks?"
The iraqi army was disbanded after the fall of Saddam, so there are plenty of military trained people who can execute these attacks. As for explosives, like somebody else said, plenty of weapon caches were up for grabs in the chaos at the end of the war. The bomb against the UN headquarters consisted of a truck full of mortar bombs and grenades for instance.
Originally posted by Luke T. An average Iraqi citizen? I don't THINK so!
So who is behind it? The Iraqi people? I don't THINK so!
Patrick Graham in Falluja meets angry Iraqi tribes who say they, not Saddam's forces, are shooting down US helicopters (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1080989,00.html)

CIA says insurgents now 50,000 strong (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1083847,00.html)

[demon]

"Of course, what would Blix know? He was only the chief arms inspector."

So again, why not tell the whole story about the Weapons Inspectors and what happened? Let`s not cherry pick.
Blix himself understood how the Inspections had been undermined by the US and it was one of his main concerns when he went back in. He was determined not to let it happen again as in the past they had ..."lost credibility by being too closely linked with the intelligence organizations of the West"

The US scuppered these inspections, both times. It wasn`t the Iraqis, unless of course you think it`s ok to have one rule for them and another for us.

Don`t take my word for it, have a look at how these events were reported and subsequently distorted into down right lies.


http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR111802.htm

[peptoabysmal]

Exactly what is it about violence in the middle east that is catching you off-guard and surprised?

[peptoabysmal]

One more post before I vanish into the ether:

Iraq has a population of millions, and the best estimates I've seen regarding the Saddam loyalists / insurgents numbers is about 5000 (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/148260_insurgency14.html) . Not an impossible resistance to put down.

There are no coalition POW's being held anywhere in Iraq. You can start chanting Vietnam when there are some coalition POW's.

The "enemy" has only inflicted random casualties, and have not won one single battle.

For all intent and purposes the coalition forces control the country.

Rebuilding of the government and infrastructure is well under way, and it hasn't even been a year since the war.


What is the rationale for wanting to get out of Iraq? We are winning, we'd better get out while we are ahead?

If we leave now we make 5000 Iraqi bad guys happy, and dissapoint millions. Not to mention leaving them wide open for a bloody civil war.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Graham


You say I have no evidence - name one nation that has ever managed to win this type of war - just one, I challenge you.

Graham

How about the British, Malaya 1950s?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
One more post before I vanish into the ether:

Iraq has a population of millions, and the best estimates I've seen regarding the Saddam loyalists / insurgents numbers is about 5000 (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/148260_insurgency14.html) . Not an impossible resistance to put down.

There are no coalition POW's being held anywhere in Iraq. You can start chanting Vietnam when there are some coalition POW's.

The "enemy" has only inflicted random casualties, and have not won one single battle.

For all intent and purposes the coalition forces control the country.

Rebuilding of the government and infrastructure is well under way, and it hasn't even been a year since the war.


What is the rationale for wanting to get out of Iraq? We are winning, we'd better get out while we are ahead?

If we leave now we make 5000 Iraqi bad guys happy, and dissapoint millions. Not to mention leaving them wide open for a bloody civil war.

There is no question that we control the country. There is substantial question that anything we do will stand once we leave. In the meantime we are a convenient target and we don't understand clearly our objective for exercising the aforementioned control. Our military force is not designed as policemen.

Believe me, there will be a lot more than 5000 Iraqis happy when we leave.

And I am not sure of your comment about Vietnam and POWs. Do you not recall that Vietnam started off quite similar to this? There was a time when there were essentially no POWs and there was nearly 100% control of the South? That changed as more and more South Vietnamese came to view the US as the invasion force propping up an unpopular government. If you do not see that military intercession in internal politics of another country is not a suitable role for the US, you are missing the lessons of Vietnam.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Giz


How about the British, Malaya 1950s?

Interesting, not a conflict I had even heard of before.

For anyone similarly ignorant, there's a good (I assume) summary here and on linked pages (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/malaya/malayan1.html) .

The Malayan Emergency began in February 1948 with terrorist attacks by Communist guerillas on European settlers in the Malay peninsula. The Emergency was declared in July of that year. The Communists were not prepared for the British response of aggressive counter-attacks and search and destroy tactics. The Communist units were very nearly destroyed in the ensuing running fights, but a pause caused by the delay of British reinforcements, and the death of the High Commissioner, allowed the Communist army time to regroup and retrain. The Communists continued their campaign: of either wooing the populace, or terrifying them into kicking the British out. Their campaign failed. The British employed one of their first helicopter units in a hearts-and-minds campaign, using the helicopters to evacuate military and civilian wounded to hospital, to bring in supplies and to provide troop transport.

The Communist force fell apart in 1960, after twelve years of jungle warfare. The British hearts-and-minds campaign was successful, in sharp contrast to the similar, but unsuccessful, campaign mounted by the Americans in Vietnam.

The keys to their success seem to have been:

(a) Quick and decisive action, nipping the uprising very firmly in the bud, getting the enemy on the run and keeping them there.

(b) Use of troops experienced in the terrain (gurkhas and Malay battallions).

(c) Successful coordination with and support of local police force

(d) Clear demonstration to the general population that the British were "on their side" (for instance the use of military helicopters to evac civilian casualties).

This ties in nicely with LukeT's proposed strategy above.

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I think most of what has been expressed in this topic is opinion. The degree each opinion is based on fact is another matter of opinion. I also think most opinion is based on outlook. That could be a chicken-and-the-egg thing, I don't know. Has the past caused some to have a negative outlook for the future? Or has a negative disposition caused some to have a negative outlook of both the past and the future? Again, I don't know. All I know is that I have an optimisitic outlook on both the past and the future. While I acknowledge there are evils committed and lurking, I believe there is even more good.

I also believe that democracy is as certain as evolution. Just as it was inevitable that some ocean slime would one day walk the earth in human form, it is inevitable every nation will come to democracy. Democracy is currently the most evolved form of government. Those who don't evolve will perish from the earth.

I believe we have kicked off the necessary chain of events for democracy not only in Iraq, but all of the Middle East. I don't for a second think the final accomplishment will take place while Bush is still in office. Maybe not even while he is still alive and living in retirement.

I think there is a lot more bloodshed ahead. Both American and Iraqi. Right now, we are taking the bullets the citizens of Iraqi will take in even greater numbers after we have left. If I were a short-sighted person, I would be pessimistic about that.

So when you ask me to convince you it will be all right "in the end," I can only say it depends on how far you can see.

Nice post, Luke - going for the philosophical, I see :)

Your contention that democracy is "as inevitable as evolution" is interesting - perhaps deserving of a seperate topic to itself. I do not necessarily agree but will not derail this discussion.

Regardless, who do you think has the moral fibre, the courage, if you like to see this through to the best possible ending?

If the people who are there for the oil/money (and surely you must admit that there were at least some) are making no money they will leave.

If the people who are there for political gain are making no political capital (again you must admit that there were some), they will leave.

Similarly, the people who are there to prevent Saddam gassing the world with his WMD, that will just leave the idealists, I suppose.

Call me pessimistic if you like but - idealists running a war-torn country? Good luck with that.

Graham

Edited for stoopid spellinks

[Graham]

Originally posted by Ziggurat Northern Ireland was a very different beast than Iraq. The IRA had a definite and coherent political goal, and they communicated that goal to those they hoped to gain the support of and those they hoped to defeat. The Iraqi opposition, as such, has no coherent goal (kicking us out isn't coherent if you don't say what you're going to replace us with). Until relatively recently in the conflict the British were not working towards bettering the lives of catholics as well as protestants. The resentment against the British was not based on misperception, it was substantive (and don't forget, if you're aware already, that the pro-British UDA killed more people than the IRA). That gave the IRA a support base that lasted.


First of all, an acknowledgement that it is a different situation. Any comparison between two situations has only so much mileage before the cracks start to show.

As regards the UDA and the IRA, I have heard that statement before but never seen it substantiated - do you know where it comes from? Do you know does it include only "innocent" victims or also victims of internal feuds and so-called punishment attacks?

Other than that, I won't discuss the NI situation any further since, as you say, it is a different beast and the comparison has outlived its usefullness.


The insurgency in Iraq is probably funded in large part by the looting of the Iraqi central bank by Saddam and his followers: that money can't last forever, and they have no structure set up to maintain funding. Furthermore, the actions of radicals like threatening children, attacking Iraqi police stations (and BTW, the Iraqi police are doing a great job and have a lot of respect among the people) and red cross facilities, and killing innocent Iraqis are really turning the majority of the population against the radicals.

- snip -

I do not see success as assured, but I see it as attainable, and worth fighting for.

I would imagine the insurgents / guerillas / terrorists (call them what you will) in Iraq will have as much funding as the PLO and the various Al Queda and Al Queda-like groups around the world. There never seems to be shortage of cash for such people. Plus the funds looted from the Iraqi banks might not run out as soon as all that, depending on the type of operations mounted, especially if they are already more or less armed to the teeth.

Another point to consider about minorities and majorities in this situation is that terrorist guerillas have two options - get the majority on your side or get them so scared that they go along with you anyway, despite not being on your side.

As well as demonstrating to the Iraqi population that they are on their side, the US forces need to demonstrate that they can protect the more moderate majority from the radicals. That's easier said than done too.

I agree that success is attainable and most definitely agree that it is worth fighting for. I am unsure, however, that the will exists or that the way is recognised.

Graham

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Graham


Nice post, Luke - going for the philosophical, I see :)

Your contention that democracy is "as inevitable as evolution" is interesting - perhaps deserving of a seperate topic to itself. I do not necessarily agree but will not derail this discussion.

Regardless, who do you think has the moral fibre, the courage, if you like to see this through to the best possible ending?

If the people who are there for the oil/money (and surely you must admit that there were at least some) are making no money they will leave.

If the people who are there for political gain are making no political capital (again you must admit that there were some), they will leave.

Similarly, the people who are there to prevent Saddam gassing the world with his WMD, that will just leave the ideallists, I suppose.

Call me pessimistic if you like but - ideallists running a war-torn country? Good luck with that.

Graham

I would agree with statements by you, Luke and others that there is a chance for a positive outcome. It is not impossible. I don't agree that it has much to do with American resolve. We beat our head against a brick wall in Vietnam for a decade and it didn't do much good. The difficulty is that our viewpoints are so different from the Iraqis. This is a tremendous hurdle now, and it will continue to be.

[Graham]

Originally posted by DrChinese


I would agree with statements by you, Luke and others that there is a chance for a positive outcome. It is not impossible. I don't agree that it has much to do with American resolve. We beat our head against a brick wall in Vietnam for a decade and it didn't do much good. The difficulty is that our viewpoints are so different from the Iraqis. This is a tremendous hurdle now, and it will continue to be.

You say our viewpoints are "different" from the Iraqis'.

I'm not sure what you mean - can you elaborate a little?

Graham

[Deimos]

I don't think I saw these (coule of days old) news pieces mentioned, US troops accidentally shooting (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/316/world/Governing_Council_says_U_S_tro:.shtml) at a car with a Governing Council member in it , and killing five people driving a truck carrying chickens (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1068636608192&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724)
I'm sure this will make the Iraqi citizens just love the US troops even more.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Graham


You say our viewpoints are "different" from the Iraqis'.

I'm not sure what you mean - can you elaborate a little?

Graham

Sure.

1. We know the benefits of two party politics because that is what democracy means in the US. It is a "winner take all" system in essense, which discourages having more than 2 strong political parties in any area (could be a different two) and on the national level as well. However, the politics of Iraq may not fit that well, and so we have no expertise in such systems. So when we talk democracy, we are talking what we know - not necessarily what Iraq needs.

2. We take our internal security for granted, and have for over a hundred years. They cannot conceive of freedom AND security coexisting. And we cannot guarantee they will have that after we leave.

3. We view ourselves as altruistic liberators; they see foreign interlopers with guns.

4. We know we are not there to plunder; Iraqis are not too sure we have their best interests at heart. In fact I am not too sure myself. Plus, after years of Saddam talking bad about the US, there might be a lot of distrust.

5. We believe in separation of church and state. Many Iraqis may not believe this is best; and want an active role for Islamic law in a way we would consider unacceptable.

Enough?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Graham:
Even with the full support of the majority of the population and a relatively begnign regime, the British still couldn't subdue the terrorists and were, eventually, essentially forced to concede.

Actually the SAS were having continuing success against the IRA, and the argument could be equally made that Sinn Fein/IRA were brought to the negotiating table by the impending collapse of their terrorist campaign.

You say I have no evidence - name one nation that has ever managed to win this type of war - just one, I challenge you.

Graham

Ireland, 1921-1923?

[RussDill]

people keep mentioning vietnam as a reason that it won't work in Iraq. I might mention the sucess of south korea. The world economy would not be what it is today if not for south korea. Hopefully, one day in the not so distant future, the same can be said for iraq

[Graham]

Actually the SAS were having continuing success against the IRA, and the argument could be equally made that Sinn Fein/IRA were brought to the negotiating table by the impending collapse of their terrorist campaign.

I don't know about that - source, maybe? Not that I doubt you, just interested.

Ireland, 1921-1923?

The difference there, IMO, would be that it was us against us rather than us against them, making it that much harder for the minority of fanatics to operate safely within "normal" society.

IMO, one of the biggest mistakes the Us made in Iraq was disbanding the Iraqi army instead of recruiting it.

Graham

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

1. We know the benefits of two party politics because that is what democracy means in the US. It is a "winner take all" system in essense, which discourages having more than 2 strong political parties in any area (could be a different two) and on the national level as well. However, the politics of Iraq may not fit that well, and so we have no expertise in such systems. So when we talk democracy, we are talking what we know - not necessarily what Iraq needs.


It's not clear to me that they won't use a more European- or Canadian-style democracy, meaning many parties with party alliances, etc. So this concern may be a bit premature, though you are correct that it isn't advisable to try to make them fit in the same form, since it's the democratic substance that in the end matters the most.


2. We take our internal security for granted, and have for over a hundred years. They cannot conceive of freedom AND security coexisting. And we cannot guarantee they will have that after we leave.


We cannot guarantee that, but I think it's presumptuous to say what they cannot concieve of. They may not be familiar with it, but that's not the same thing at all. Give them a little more credit: people recognize freedom when they have it, whether or not it is familiar to them, and people who have it aren't going to want to give it up.


4. We know we are not there to plunder; Iraqis are not too sure we have their best interests at heart. In fact I am not too sure myself. Plus, after years of Saddam talking bad about the US, there might be a lot of distrust.


Saddam's lies are part of the problem, though not in the way I think you might be suggesting. I don't think the Iraqis believe the lies he told them, but we do face the problem that they were lied to so consistently that they aren't going to take our word about our intentions at face value, which can be a problem.


5. We believe in separation of church and state. Many Iraqis may not believe this is best; and want an active role for Islamic law in a way we would consider unacceptable.


My impression has been that this is not a majority viewpoint. Those who believe this have certainly been very vocal, but that's not the same thing as this being a popular opinion. The Iraqi people are not impressed with what a theocracy has produced in Iran. Under dictatorships, Islam has tended to be either a competing power that must be crushed by the state (Saddam), or must become a central part of the power structure of the state (Saudi Arabia, Iran), precisely because such governments cannot accept alternative sources of authority. But democracies can work even with alternative authorities in place. Democracy makes it possible for religious leaders to survive in positions of authority independent of the state, so I don't think they're ultimately going to struggle to bring the state under their control, because they aren't going to need to. So I think the combination of the majority of Iraqis not being interested in a religious state, plus the fact that religious leaders will not need to wed their positions to political power to maintain their influence, mean that Iraq isn't actually very likely to be ruled by Islamic law.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Graham:
The difference there, IMO, would be that it was us against us rather than us against them, making it that much harder for the minority of fanatics to operate safely within "normal" society.

Do I sense a "no true Scotsman" argument coming on? What really made it harder for the minority of fanatics to operate in the Irish Civil War was the determination of the opposition. The Free State government prosecuted the Irish Civil War with much greater vigour than the British did the Irish War of Independence. Of course when it was a case of "us" against "them" the British could have won, but weren't prepared to impose the bloodshed that would have been necessary.

I don't know about that - source, maybe? Not that I doubt you, just interested.

Type "IRA" and "SAS" into google.

[Graham]

Do I sense a "no true Scotsman" argument coming on? What really made it harder for the minority of fanatics to operate in the Irish Civil War was the determination of the opposition. The Free State government prosecuted the Irish Civil War with much greater vigour than the British did the Irish War of Independence. Of course when it was a case of "us" against "them" the British could have won, but weren't prepared to impose the bloodshed that would have been necessary.

Not really, it just seems to me that one of the advantages a group like the IRA has over an occupying force is that the occupiers are outsiders. That advantage would be negated if the "occupiers" were fellow countrymen. Which part of that do you disagree with?

Type "IRA" and "SAS" into google.

Hmm, many pages of Google later, I've not found much to support your contention. Seems more like SAS operations were resricted after some high-profile killings in the late '80s.

Want to help me narrow the search a little?

Graham

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by RussDill
people keep mentioning vietnam as a reason that it won't work in Iraq. I might mention the sucess of south korea. The world economy would not be what it is today if not for south korea. Hopefully, one day in the not so distant future, the same can be said for iraq

South Korea a success???? We have been there over 50 YEARS for god's sake. I shudder to think of 50 years in Iraq. Let me guess: you think we've been successful in Cuba too. P.S. Even Castro will die eventually.

Oh, I know, I am trying to rush things and take the short term view instead of seeing the "big" picture...

LOL.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

South Korea a success???? We have been there over 50 YEARS for god's sake. I shudder to think of 50 years in Iraq. Let me guess: you think we've been successful in Cuba too. P.S. Even Castro will die eventually.

Oh, I know, I am trying to rush things and take the short term view instead of seeing the "big" picture...

LOL.

I'm confused as to why you think the fact that we've been there fifty years is a bad thing. We've been in Germany for fifty years. We've been in Japan for fifty years. Those places are successes. Unless your goal is to turn the US into an isolationist island, our mere presence there for so long is really irrelevant to the success or failure of our endeavor. But our protection of South Korea HAS been a success: South Korea has prospered, and become a valuable trading partner. I too would love to see the same thing happen with Iraq. And if we still have some troops stationed there fifty years from now, so what? We have bases all over the world. We WANT bases all over the world.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


I'm confused as to why you think the fact that we've been there fifty years is a bad thing. We've been in Germany for fifty years. We've been in Japan for fifty years. Those places are successes. Unless your goal is to turn the US into an isolationist island, our mere presence there for so long is really irrelevant to the success or failure of our endeavor. But our protection of South Korea HAS been a success: South Korea has prospered, and become a valuable trading partner. I too would love to see the same thing happen with Iraq. And if we still have some troops stationed there fifty years from now, so what? We have bases all over the world. We WANT bases all over the world.

We lost 37,000 lives in Korea. For what? I know what South Korea got, what did we get? A trading partner? Don't make me laugh.

I don't equate minding our own business with isolationism. And the reason we have bases around the world is not for our defense.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

We lost 37,000 lives in Korea. For what? I know what South Korea got, what did we get? A trading partner? Don't make me laugh.


Let's back up a second: are you talking about the Korean war alone, or the Korean war and our continued presence as a single, inseparable action? Because that's not at all clear from your earlier statements. The fact that we got a good trading partner is more than enough to justify our continued presence. As for the war itself, well, I still think we got a lot. We kept the Kim from taking over all of Korea (which would have made him much stronger and more dangerous). We kept South Korea from suffering the fate of North Korea (that was in humanity's best interest, even if not strictly our selfish interests, but I have no complaints in that regard). It gave us a valuable military ally in the region as well. And it let both the Chinese and Russians know that they couldn't use their armies and weapons to spread communism unopposed.


I don't equate minding our own business with isolationism. And the reason we have bases around the world is not for our defense.

It's for the defense of our interests. And considering our role in the world, the two aren't separable. The world is our business, we cannot help but affect and be affected by everything else. Pretending otherwise won't change that.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What amazes me here is the utter defeatism. The "logic" seems to be: "well, this is hard to do and success is not guaranteed, so it's probably not worth doing anyway, so let's quit now and cut our losses."

I think that Bush is partially to blame here, actually. Remember that Winston Churchill was elected despite promising his people nothing but blood, swear and tears--and perhaps precisely BECAUSE of that. When you mislead people into thinking that establishing democracy in Iraq is going to be easy, that toppling Saddam is the SAME THING as establishing a working democracy in Iraq, no wonder they are shocked by any setback. U.S. experience in Vietnam informs our attitude toward having success in Iraq. The scary thing is that the Bush administration may have misled itself or let Mr. Chalabi mislead it, as well as the public, about the difficulty facing the coalition. But that aside, we probably wouldn't be in this fix at all if Bush hadn't conned the U.S. into going to war with ill-founded warnings that Iraq was about to launch weapons of mass destruction. In the face of this, eveyone concentrated on thwarting the attack first and put off considering the aftermath until later. I'd say that Bush is a lot more than "partially to blame."

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Graham:
Not really, it just seems to me that one of the advantages a group like the IRA has over an occupying force is that the occupiers are outsiders. That advantage would be negated if the "occupiers" were fellow countrymen. Which part of that do you disagree with?

None of it, it was your original statement I took issue with.

[The Fool]

I remember back to one night when I came home turned on the TV and saw the twin towers come down. My reaction at the time was that the US should identify who was responsible and go and get them. Well, the US didn't have to do too much work to figure out who was responsible...It was common knowledge shortly afterwards.

OK, so what happened to the "go get em" bit....The US figured out where they were and "went and got em" The leadership and a few remnants fled into remote parts of Pakistan. WTF happened then Americans??????? Every American on this forum should ask GWB what the F*ck he was thinking with this Iraq business. He fed you a bulls*it story and led you into a war that seems to have no aim....a Giant west bank of your very own.

I'm sure if you could have asked Bin Laden what he would have liked to see the American do when he was fleeing in disorder into Pakistan he would have said something like "Wouldn't it be good if the Americans just left us alone and decided to beat up that doofus Hussein instead"

Bin Laden must be laughing every time he see's more of Americas efforts get absorbed into the quagmire that is Iraq. It is not enough to just redouble your efforts as soon as you loose sight of your objectives.......Bin Laden could not have had a better outcome than this invasion of Iraq..... He needed a break and he needed to get off the front pages for a while. He needed America to go away and get involved in an expensive irrelevant sideshow...GWB handed him his wish on a plate.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by The Fool

OK, so what happened to the "go get em" bit....The US figured out where they were and "went and got em" The leadership and a few remnants fled into remote parts of Pakistan. WTF happened then Americans??????? Every American on this forum should ask GWB what the F*ck he was thinking with this Iraq business. He fed you a bulls*it story and led you into a war that seems to have no aim....a Giant west bank of your very own.


Bin Laden is probably dead. As for Iraq, well, I for one never felt that invasion was only justified if there was a direct connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda. I think invasion was justified before 9/11, though the will to do so was not there. And we're not going to end up with a west bank, because we're not going to let the UN screw everything up. I think we've done a hell of a lot of good in Iraq. We've got quite a definite aim: remove Saddam and his cronies from power (accomplished) and establish democracy in Iraq. Evidently those aren't important goals to some people.

[BTox]

Originally posted by The Fool
IOK, so what happened to the "go get em" bit....The US figured out where they were and "went and got em" The leadership and a few remnants fled into remote parts of Pakistan. WTF happened then Americans??????? Every American on this forum should ask GWB what the F*ck he was thinking with this Iraq business. He fed you a bulls*it story and led you into a war that seems to have no aim....a Giant west bank of your very own.


Yes, we should have invaded Pakistan next. Then if Bin Laden fled into Iran, invade them, too. :rolleyes:

[RussDill]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Oh...you mean someone who was a brutal dictator and hated western power supported al queda? No f-in way. Why are links like this such a leap of logic?

[RussDill]

The argument against this is of course, that saddam had a secular government, which bin Laden would dispise and hate:

"For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."

Feb 23, 1998 Fatwa from bin Laden

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RussDill
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Oh...you mean someone who was a brutal dictator and hated western power supported al queda? No f-in way. Why are links like this such a leap of logic?

Because Saddam lead a secular state, which OBL hated. Saddam also didn't want Muslims p!ssing on his parade, as this might challenge his power since his power base was from a minority party, and the majority population in Iraq were Muslims.

You seem to put a lot of faith in American intelligence that would justify the Bush adminstration's actions. Is this the same American intelligence that says Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was trying to get nuclear enrichment equipment?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Because Saddam lead a secular state, which OBL hated. Saddam also didn't want Muslims p!ssing on his parade, as this might challenge his power since his power base was from a minority party, and the majority population in Iraq were Muslims.


did you read my above quote from OBL?


You seem to put a lot of faith in American intelligence that would justify the Bush adminstration's actions. Is this the same American intelligence that says Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was trying to get nuclear enrichment equipment?

The iraq<->al queda intelligence largely from the clinton era. World inteligence said that iraq had these weapons post gulf war, iraq was supposed to provide proof of where these weapons went. And btw, it was british inteligence that said they were attempting to procure nuclear materials from nigera

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by RussDill

... it was british inteligence that said they were attempting to procure nuclear materials from nigera

Just a quick note: the British claim was about attempts to get uranium from Africa, not specifically Nigeria.

On the broader issue of Osama and Saddam, clearly they had opposing goals. But that doesn't in any way preclude a temporary alliance of conveniece against the US, which was for both of them a much more important enemy.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
... But that doesn't in any way preclude a temporary alliance of conveniece against the US, which was for both of them a much more important enemy.

Sort of like the alliance of convenience between the Saddam and Reagan in the 80's, I guess.