Our next Vietnam?

[Wayne Grabert]

Please read this article. (http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-tribes14oct14004436,0,1403442.story) It only takes a few minutes, but it is packed with very eye-opening information about the tribal structure of Iraq and the sociological effects of the 12-year US/UN embargo. Anyone who thinks that conquering Iraq and creating democracy there will be a "cakewalk" is not paying attention.

[aerocontrols]

Interesting article.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
"cakewalk"

If I may ask, who are you quoting?

MattJ

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Interesting article.

If I may ask, who are you quoting?

MattJ
Not you or anyone in particular. I have seen this opinion expressed before, but I can't recall from whom.

[a_unique_person]

I think the only lesson the US learned from Vietnam was don't get killed, run it all by remote control.

As Afghanistan has shown, a high tech army will suffer very few casualties.

[Wayne Grabert]

Yes, but this operation would, ah, will require massive numbers of ground troops doing things much more the old fashioned way.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think the only lesson the US learned from Vietnam was don't get killed, run it all by remote control.

As Afghanistan has shown, a high tech army will suffer very few casualties.

Well, you can't occupy foreign territory from the air. You can clear it above ground from airstrikes, and you can even get some subterranean bunkers, but you cannot occupy it.

Occupation will be necessary in order to induce and enforce a change in regimes. An army occupying foreign soil for an extended period of time, if that territory is hostile, will incur substantial casualties, high tech or not.

AS

[svero]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Well, you can't occupy foreign territory from the air. You can clear it above ground from airstrikes, and you can even get some subterranean bunkers, but you cannot occupy it.

Occupation will be necessary in order to induce and enforce a change in regimes. An army occupying foreign soil for an extended period of time, if that territory is hostile, will incur substantial casualties, high tech or not.

AS

Afghanistan changed govt and that wasnt the case. Why are more ground troops and close fighting required for Iraq? I'm not saying you're wrong, just asking you to explain why what you've said is true.

[alancarre]

Originally posted by svero


Afghanistan changed govt and that wasnt the case. Why are more ground troops and close fighting required for Iraq? I'm not saying you're wrong, just asking you to explain why what you've said is true.

IMO:

Afghanistan had a recognizable (and sizeable) resistance force ready to occupy the country (the so-called "Northern Alliance"). Also, from what I understand, the new government's authority barely extends beyond Kabul at the moment. I think, without a much larger international occupation force, the country will continue to descend into it's normal state of anarchy.

Plus there are other factors in Afghanistan that mitigate the need for a massive occupation force such as would be required in Iraq: For instance, that the general population is unarmed, uneducated, starving, tired of war, and of no particular political persuasion.

- A

[Wayne Grabert]

Here is an article (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/11/fallows.htm) from the Atlantic that addresses the question of what would happen after a US invasion of Iraq deposed Hussein. The author interviewed several dozen people.

[Jon_in_london]

There WERE lots of anti-taliban ground troops in Afghanistan, they were just not from the west.

You can bomb away all you like but sooner or later you are going to have to bring in the infantry to close with and kill the enemy and hold the ground. All these laser guided smart bombs are just fancy artillery, which is good for softening up but wont achieve a victory unless the enemy state capitulates on seeing the country's infasrtucture being destroyed (Milosevic) but this doesnt often happen (GW1, WWII etc etc..) and certainly wont happen in GWII because Saddam knows he has nothing to lose by fighting on until the end.

However, the quality of the Iraqi infantry is so **** this shouldnt be too much of a problem but coalition forces WILL take some casualties.

[Wayne Grabert]

From the Washington Post, an Arab expert writes about Illusions of an Iraqi democracy. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57518-2002Oct7.html)

[Baker]

We have another older thread trying to compare Iraq with Vietnam.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Baker
We have another older thread trying to compare Iraq with Vietnam.
So it's not like no one saw it coming.

Here it comes now. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/20/wcler20.xml) Mr Abbas is a militant Shia cleric with an unnervingly fine grasp of the political possibilities of post-war Iraq. Some days ago, he walked into Kut town hall and simply took it over, accompanied by hundreds of supporters, many of whom had crossed the border from Iran.

Now thousands attend his meetings, while the marines consult with rival tribal leaders on how to get him out. Yesterday's rally was bigger than ever. As he spoke, Mr Abbas voiced what are quickly becoming the standard demands: an Islamic, Shia-dominated state for Iraq, and an end to American occupation.

Similar events are occurring in towns and cities throughout the centre and east of Iraq. Shia fundamentalists, long cowed by Saddam's brutal methods of crowd control, are striving to exploit a power vacuum yet to be filled by Gen Jay Garner, America's designated civil administrator for Iraq.

When Gen Garner arrives in Baghdad with his staff of 500, possibly in the middle of this week, Iraq's looters may be the least of his problems.

In Najaf, the principal seat of Shia learning, a fierce battle is going on between radical and moderate clerics. On April 10, as factionalism took hold, two rival clerics died there in pools of blood - one of them Ayatollah Abdul Majid al-Khoei, a religious moderate previously cultivated by Tony Blair.

Now another of the holy city's moderate religious leaders, Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Alo al-Sistani, refuses to leave his house. Aides say that he is making a protest against the murders. Others say that he fears for his own life.

The concern for coalition forces is that pent-up resentment at years of repression under Saddam, and the tension caused by internal schisms, may be unleashed on American and British troops.

On Friday in Baghdad, in the first genuine mass demonstration in the capital for decades, Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims marched together chanting the same slogans: "No to Bush, no to Saddam, yes to Islam," and "Leave our country, we want peace."

The march took place immediately after Friday prayers. The aim of the demonstration and others like it is becoming increasingly focused: an Islamic state for Iraq.

Here is an interesting little story on
two million Muslims marching in Iraq. (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12292039,00.html) _
Shia Pilgrimage
IRAQ: SHI'ITES' HOLY RALLYAs many as_2m_Shi'ites from Iraq, Iran and other countries are_converging on the holy city of Karbala in central Iraq.

The pilgrimage to Karbala - site of the 7th century martyrdom of Hussein, a grandson of the prophet Muhammad and one of the sect's most revered saints - culminates on Thursday.

(snip)

Major Jason Chung, an intelligence officer with the 82nd, discounted reports that some pilgrims, including a number from Iran, regarded this year's trek to Karbala as a march of protest against the Americans.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

So it's not like no one saw it coming.

Here it comes now. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/20/wcler20.xml)
Here is an interesting little story on
two million Muslims marching in Iraq. (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12292039,00.html)

I believe most expected some call for a quick exit from Iraq to the US but it hardly equals Vietnam.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Baker


I believe most expected some call for a quick exit from Iraq to the US but it hardly equals Vietnam.
Oh, so you think the matter is settled? All will be peaceful and compliant, right? The worst is already over?

[Theodore Kurita]

You also have to remember that the USA has not had a good track record of installing new regimes.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by ((^-_-^))
You also have to remember that the USA has not had a good track record of installing new regimes.

Compared to whom?

[clk]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Compared to whom?

Don't worry about ((^-_-^)), aerocontrols.
He doesn't have a good track record of telling the truth :(

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Compared to whom?
That's an odd question. He wasn't making a comparison.

[Wayne Grabert]

I want to point out that the country to which I've most often compared Iraq in my warnings has not been Vietnam, but 1990's Afghanistan. I can see Iraq fragmenting and a large chunk of it becoming an Islamic state akin to that in either Iran or what was and will eventually be again in Afghanistan.

More warning signs. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/20/international/worldspecial/20SHIA.html?ex=1051801390&ei=1&en=b9cf48d8f17802f4)

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

That's an odd question. He wasn't making a comparison.

I know. I would like him to, however.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I know. I would like him to, however.
Why? Why not deal with what he has said?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Why? Why not deal with what he has said?

I'm trying to understand where he's coming from, that's why. What's it to you?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I'm trying to understand where he's coming from, that's why. What's it to you?
It strikes me as an odd question that misses the point. My inference isn't that he's arguing that the US should do a better job of installing regimes or try to mimic someone else's behavior; it's that it shouldn't be in the business of installing regimes in the first place. The track record is one of undesired consequences.

The facts are that the war was launched on a foundation of lie (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=398705) after lie, (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=398707) and the majority of sheep--ah, American citizens--bought into the Big Lie that frail, disarmed Iraq somehow posed a threat to our national security. (Fears are so easily manipulated.)

Don't despair. The Bush family and its friends in the plutocracy are in line to become much richer from this effort while you and I and our children and grandchildren pay the consequences. The least anyone can do is not smile while getting it up the poop chute without any grease. In 18 months, if there is an election, we'll have our opportunity to say, "Thank you, sir. May I have some more?"

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think the only lesson the US learned from Vietnam was don't get killed, run it all by remote control.

As Afghanistan has shown, a high tech army will suffer very few casualties.

Hopefully this keeps you awake at night. :D :D :D Excuse US from learning from our mistakes.
:D :D :D

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
...it's that it shouldn't be in the business of installing regimes in the first place. The track record is one of undesired consequences. People throughout Iraq are now looking for their missing loved ones. So intent are they on finding them that they are tearing apart highways and basements in the belief that there are hidden prisons. The truth is that most of these lost souls are simply dead. Their is no one to find. We can't bring back the dead but we have at least for now stopped this murderous thug. I think we have a very good chance that we have stopped the bloodshed and terror that was visited upon these people.

That we have failed in the past to change regimes is a poor reason to think that Iraq can't succeed. If you were an Iraqi would you want the opportunity before Saddam's regime was toppled or now?

This is an historic moment. People have been freed and a tyrant has been dispatched. The slapping of shoes on Saddam's image left no doubt as to the sentiments of the Iraqis.

Will we ultimately succeed? I guess it depends on how you measure success. The freeing of millions of people from the hands of a brutal dictator is for me success. To the tens of thousands looking for lost loved ones the chance that a new government will be formed that will prevent others from disappearing in the night, this is a success. That this was not the primary reason for the war is besides the point. We did not go to concur and we will not occupy. If that was our only purpose we would have done that in '91. In fact we would have kept Kuwait as a territory and allowed women to hold jobs and started importing liquor.

No, we want oil to flow freely and we want a government in Iraq that is hopefully more conducive to us. The devil we didn't know is likely better than the devil we knew. It will be difficult and their will be many opportunities for you to say "I told you so". But there is a great opportunity for change and that there will be bumps in the road ahead is not sufficient reason for us to have not done this. I have read your articles and your arguments these past weeks and I disagree with you. We did the right and moral thing.

Don't despair. The Bush family and its friends in the plutocracy are in line to become much richer from this effort while you and I and our children and grandchildren pay the consequences. The least anyone can do is not smile while getting it up the poop chute without any grease. In 18 months, if there is an election, we'll have our opportunity to say, "Thank you, sir. May I have some more?" Yes, you are the one who sees clearly. We who support Bush are blind sheep and your contempt for us is noted. Thank you.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
That we have failed in the past to change regimes is a poor reason to think that Iraq can't succeed. If you were an Iraqi would you want the opportunity before Saddam's regime was toppled or now?

This is an historic moment. People have been freed and a tyrant has been dispatched. The slapping of shoes on Saddam's image left no doubt as to the sentiments of the Iraqis.


The people of Iraq seem to be quite intent on exchanging a secular thug for an Islamic regime that will be just as oppressive and brutal. If they really wanted liberty so bad, they'd have fought for it.

We should stick to fighting our own battles. For example, trying to create democracy here rather than destroying whatever remnants remain.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan

Yes, you are the one who sees clearly. We who support Bush are blind sheep and your contempt for us is noted. Thank you.
You are welcome. I am glad that I am getting through to you, but how is that contempt for you? My contempt is directed at malevolent policy and its blind support.

It is the Bush administration that has so much contempt for you that it continually lies to you, asks you to die under false pretenses, robs you of your civil liberties, conducts secretive government (because dregs like you don't need to know how you're being screwed over) and is damaging your future.

Blame the messenger.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
The people of Iraq seem to be quite intent on exchanging a secular thug for an Islamic regime that will be just as oppressive and brutal. If they really wanted liberty so bad, they'd have fought for it. That WILL be JUST AS oppressive. We will see.

We should stick to fighting our own battles. For example, trying to create democracy here rather than destroying whatever remnants remain. I understand your meaning. I respect your opinion. I strongly disagree with it but I respect it.

I think you are engaging in a bit of Hyperbole. History in America has shown that the pendulum swings. Democrats will retake the Senate and House and there will be another Democrat as president. I will have my opportunity to bemoan the fact that the Democrats are "shredding" the constitution and that the sky is falling. Until then I will have to settle for being on the side of the party in power...well...kind of since I'm libertarian.

I'm glad I got to speak my peace. I don't think this will be another Vietnam. Again I respect you and I understand your passion about this issue. I will gladly give you the last word.

Thanks,

RandFan

[RandFan]

I promised you the last word and I will give it to you. I just wanted to respond to this post.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
You are welcome. I am glad that I am getting through to you, but how is that contempt for you? My contempt is directed at malevolent policy and its blind support. You presume that I follow blindly. You know that I read the paper and the Internet, I listen to NPR and liberal talk show hosts and read commentators who are counter to my own ideology. I watch the news and I read this forum. I am one of the few people I know who sincerely considers my views and am willing to change them when I think that I am wrong.

To assume that I am following Bush blindly is to hold me in contempt.

It is the Bush administration that has so much contempt for you that it continually lies to you, asks you to die under false pretenses, robs you of your civil liberties, conducts secretive government (because dregs like you don't need to know how you're being screwed over) and is damaging your future. When a number of prisoners were transferred from Guantanamo Bay to holding prisons in the mid East they were interviewed by reporters. It turns out that they were treated humanely. The were treated so well that the prisoners demanded they be returned to Guantanamo if they were not going to be released from the prisons that they were in. The were all well fed, clothed and in good health. In fact a number of prisoners said life in gitmo was better than the life they had before in Afghanistan. Sure they wanted their freedom but they had it pretty good.

The reporters could hardly believe this. What about the stories circulated? Didn't they feel dehumanized? No.

Charlie Daniels' Article about The Taliban Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/charliedaniels2.htm)

The truth of the matter is that this operation is under a microscope. The Red Cross has an on-site presence there and watches everything that goes on very closely. The media is not telling you the whole truth about what's going on over there. The truth is that these scum bags are not only being treated humanely, but they are probably better off, health wise and medically, than they've ever been in their lives. They are fed well, able to take showers and receive state of the art medical care, and have their own Moslem chaplain. I saw several of them in a field hospital ward where they were being treated in a state of the art medical facility. and

What to do with prisoners like these? (http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson012802.shtml)

Compare that to:

Australian prisoners in Guantanamo Bay send letters exposing their illegal detention (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/pows-m31.shtml)

“I’ve been blindfolded for eight months—I never see the sun but I see you and your kids every minute. I never forget you or forget my children.” His letter he admits was sent by the Red Cross. The Red Cross has a facility at Guantanamo.

So, what is the truth?

Are there reasons for the American people to be skeptical and speak out on this issue? Yes.

Is Bush "shredding" the constitution?

NO!

Are We Shredding the Constitution? (http://www.neto.com/rcr/outbac49.html)

Whenever Liberals mount an attack, one of the first orders of business is to conjure up an emotional, hot-button, word or phrase to use in prosecuting the attack. In connection with the new terrorism bill and federal approach to stemming terrorism, the buzzwords now for all the liberal hand wringers, bleeding hearts, and civil-rights radicals is :"Are We Shredding The Constitution?" A very catchy phrase. But, patently ridiculous.

Shred is an emotional buzzword, just like assault-weapon was in its heyday. To shred means to destroy so that a document cannot be reconstructed. To reduce to unreadable strips of paper. Or to shred a cabbage to make a salad.

The steps either taken by the Bush Administration, the Congress, the Defense Department, and the Justice Department are actually somewhat modest - given the extreme gravity of the threats we face. Even if you accept that some are "stretching the Constitution a bit," you still do not come close to "shredding the Constitution." How ironic. When Liberals want a result, they have no qualms about "allowing the Constitution to be adapted to modern realities." There is no "right of privacy" in the Constitution. There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. There is no mandate for Affirmative Action in the Constitution, and on and on and on .... So again, no, I do not agree with your characterization. I don't think that Bush has contempt for Americans. He is responding to a very real threat and thank god he is. Some have criticized that he has not done enough.

The Democrats’ Hypocrisy Problem (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york053102.asp)

I have allot more but that's enough. I suspect that we will get in a war of dueling articles and in the end you will believe what you want to so you can have the last word on this one also.

I am not blind and I am not uninformed. I don't only listen to right wing information but strive to get a balanced diet of information. I make informed decisions based upon reason and a critical mind. You don't have to accept that but it is true.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
You presume that I follow blindly.
I made no such presumption. You characterized your support as blind, not me. You wrote, "We who support Bush are blind sheep and your contempt for us is noted." It was your choice to take my criticisms personally. I was not writing about RandFan.

Originally posted by RandFan
So, what is the truth?
Gee, what a great selection of sources! Charlie Daniels? National Review? World Socialist Workers? Well, the latter probably has a better track record of credibility of the three.

How do you explain suicide attempts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A23114-2003Mar1&notFound=true) taking place there?
Military officials say they made preparations to handle the suicide risks, though they would not describe them in detail. But experts in correctional psychology say the problem is likely heightened by the hopelessness and stress some of the detainees may experience because of a long confinement with no foreseeable end, and by prison rules that forbid contact with families and lawyers.

The cluster of attempts has renewed criticism from human rights organizations, which have long faulted the government's decision to hold the prisoners as "unlawful combatants," without charges or protections under international prisoner of war statutes.

"As far as they know, they're going to be there forever," said Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights. "It must give people a sense of desperation. . . . This is like a Devil's Island."

But you were the one to bring up Camp X-ray.

Originally posted by RandFan
Is Bush "shredding" the constitution?

NO!
You really haven't been paying attention, have you? I won't have the time to go into all the curtailments of civil liberties, but this article (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=399024) is interesting, though not completely accurate in its characterizations. For example, the Dixie Chicks' record sales are not "plummeting." Michael Moore was not "roundly booed" at the Academy Awards. (Some radio stations have stopped playing Dixie Chicks' music, but their album supposedly climbed on the charts after their comments about Bush. There were a few people, mostly in the balcony, who booed Moore, but more people cheered him.)
Hollywood is often depicted in the US media as a hotbed of anti-government dissent and left-wing politics but that is not how it feels to Ed Gernon.

Mr Gernon was, until recently, a television producer at CBS responsible for a four-part miniseries on Hitler's rise to power, which will be shown next month. He thought the timing was apt, and said so in an interview with TV Guide magazine. "It basically boils down to an entire nation gripped by fear, who ultimately chose to give up their civil rights and plunged the whole nation into war," he said. "I can't think of a better time to examine this history than now."

That was far too strong for Leslie Moonves, CBS's chief executive, who promptly fired him. No reasons were given, although politics and a strong desire not to fall foul of the Bush administration apparently had plenty to do with it.

Of course, the firing mentioned above is not a matter of law and civil liberties, but I quote the article because I agree with Ed Gernon that the timing of his show is apt.

EDITED TO ADD: I forgot to comment on your mention of the Democrats' hypocrisy problem. I don't like the Democrats either. They are spineless and hypocritical. However, the Republicans are the bigger threat.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Gee, what a great selection of sources! Charlie Daniels? National Review? World Socialist Workers? Well, the latter probably has a better track record of credibility of the three. I promised you the last word so I won't rebut you line by line.

Nice job of poisoning the well though.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
It was your choice to take my criticisms personally. I was not writing about RandFan. Really?

You really haven't been paying attention, have you? Hmmmm.... I guess that wasn't personal either.

Yes wayne I have been paying attention. But I doubt that I could convince you of that. Believe what you want, you will anyway.