[Thin Black Line]

"You can get a lot farther with a kind word and a gun than a kind word alone."

LOL, well, maybe not.

http://www.newsobserver.com/110/story/537568.html

Nation & World Home / Nation & World

Published: Jan 30, 2007 12:30 AM
Modified: Jan 30, 2007 06:43 AM


History might have warned of a long slog in Iraq

Shankar Vedantam, The Washington Post


Whenever the United States goes to war, pro-war and anti-war advocates immediately reach for different history books. Hawks always equate the situation to a Hitler-Chamberlain standoff to show why hesitation can be fatal. Doves invariably pull the Vietnam War off the shelf to argue that plunging ahead can be foolhardy.

Two wars that the United States has launched against Iraq perfectly illustrate the problem with cherry-picking your history. Hawks and doves made their usual arguments before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Anti-war advocates who predicted that forcing Saddam Hussein to retreat from Kuwait would result in thousands of U.S. casualties were proved wrong by Operation Desert Storm. And the neoconservatives who warned that ignoring Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was like appeasing Hitler now have egg dribbling down their faces.

The history book getting the most attention right now is about the 1954-1962 French colonial war in Algeria. Hundreds of thousands of people died in that conflict before Algerian guerrillas handed the French army a humiliating defeat. President Bush said he is reading Alistair Horne's account of the conflict, "A Savage War for Peace," to glean insights about the U.S. predicament in Iraq. Horne, a British historian, recently told PBS's Charlie Rose that he sees similarities and differences between the U.S. war in Iraq and the French war in Algeria -- and hopes his book will help Bush find a way to succeed in Iraq.

Political scientist Patricia Sullivan recently decided to take a different tack than the political pundits. Rather than look for a single war to provide insight, Sullivan decided to look at all post-World War II conflicts between the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and weaker nations.

Her findings will probably surprise you -- and would make for sober reading at the White House: Although the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China were militarily superior to their opponents in every one of the 122 conflicts that Sullivan studied, these powerful countries did not win an astonishing 39 percent of their wars against weaker opponents.

What is critically important to understand, said Sullivan, who works at the University of Georgia, is that the strong countries were not militarily defeated in the post-World War II conflicts. Despite their vastly stronger military capabilities, these countries unilaterally withdrew or got stuck in a stalemate, as the United States did in Korea, in two of every five conflicts.

The United States' withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 -- precipitated by events chronicled in the book and movie "Black Hawk Down" -- was perhaps the most dramatic post-World War II example, "despite the fact that its military was, at most, only marginally degraded," Sullivan wrote in a paper she plans to publish in the Journal of Conflict Resolution.

For all the talk of "shock and awe" before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Sullivan's research shows that military power alone is not a useful predictor of victory.

Battle for the heart

Sullivan found that powerful nations tend to win wars when all they seek is an opponent's submission but tend to lose when victory requires an opponent's cooperation.

Sullivan found that the five Security Council permanent members won three-quarters of conflicts in which their aims did not require their opponents' cooperation, but only half of the conflicts in which they did.

For the United States, the disparity was even greater -- winning 81 percent of conflicts when cooperation was not required, but only 44 percent of the military interventions, such as in Laos in 1964 and Lebanon in 1982, that Sullivan described as having "coercive" goals.

"In other words," Sullivan concluded, "the United States has withdrawn its troops without attaining its primary political objective in 56 percent of the military interventions it initiated with a coercive war aim."

[Old Fuff]

The Old Fuff has a long, long memory...

During World War Two this country was united. While there was a lot of debate and hesitation about getting involved in a “European War” all of it ended on Sunday, December 7, 1941 when we got bombed at Pearl Harbor. At that point the anti-war movement disappeared, never to be seen again during the conflict. Our terms were unconditional surrender of the Axis powers, and we didn’t stop before we got it.

In Korea there was a fiction that we were fighting with/for the United Nations, and when China and Russia got involved on the North Korean side, President Truman looked for a way out and found it. We negotiated a stalemate that remains today.

In Viet Nam out fighting forces did a well as they could, but they always had to do it with one hand tied behind their back. Pres. Lyndon Johnson was a gutless wonder who tried to micro-manage the war on one hand, and believed in gradual escalation on the other. The North Vietnamese believed in winning, no mater what the cost. Eventually the liberal, left-wing anti-war movement (who generally opposed any war we might have with a communist country) became powerful enough to undercut the war effort. North Vietnam won that war for the same reason we won World War Two. They had the will and guts to win. On the home front, we didn’t.

We have somewhat the same situation in the Middle East today. Where in 1941 our motto was, “unconditional surrender,” today it’s “win fast, win easy, or cut and run.” This country doesn’t have the fortitude and resolve it once had, and is obviously a “house divided.”

But there is one thing few understand. In the 1940’s and 50’s this country was for all practical purposes, self-sufficient. We didn’t depend on anyone for anything. We made our manufactured products from our own raw materials. Today we are a dependent country. Our manufactured products come from China, and our oil from the Middle East. The Democrats may pull us out, but if that area goes up in flames we may end up thinking $3.00/gal gas was cheap as the pump price starts to double. If we want to be our own little Fortress America we’d better find a way to become self-sufficient again. Otherwise we’d better learn how to protect our own interests, and get about doing it. Exporting our manufacturing jobs and technology to foreign countries that won’t take what we produce in a one-way Global Economy isn’t going to work either. Maybe folks will wake up and sell the coffee, but don't bet on it.

[JohnL2]

It's rather early for me but I will comment.

It seems that mankind keeps fighting the same battles over and over. The means of destruction are outstripping the capacity for reason.

[Leatherneck]

I think the Old Fuff just wrote the most concise and insightful summary of "my" war I've ever read:
In Viet Nam out fighting forces did a well as they could, but they always had to do it with one hand tied behind their back. Pres. Lyndon Johnson was a gutless wonder who tried to micro-manage the war on one hand, and believed in gradual escalation on the other. The North Vietnamese believed in winning, no mater what the cost. Eventually the liberal, left-wing anti-war movement (who generally opposed any war we might have with a communist country) became powerful enough to undercut the war effort. North Vietnam won that war for the same reason we won World War Two. They had the will and guts to win. On the home front, we didn’t.

And it's true that we've become, as a nation, intolerant of war casualties. Not a bad thing necessarily, but it poorly equips a nation to fight to win.

TC

[ojibweindian]

We've been, as a nation, pansies ever since the boomers came of age in the mid-to-late 60s.

And nothing's going to change until the boomers, as a whole, do us later generations a favor and die off.

[ojibweindian]

Now that I think about it, my generation, Gen X, isn't any better.

[nhhillbilly]

Read the Sling and Stone 4th generation warfare. From that book and other readings the predominate reason nations win wars if will. At all costs. The side that wants to win at all costs normally prevails. In Asia they think about winning in terms of decades. We think about winning in weeks.

[Henry Bowman]

History might have warned of a long slog in IraqI recall President Bush repeatedly warning us of this in advance. Somehow the media has succeeded in erasing those warnings from the memory of the masses.

Perception is reality.

[ptmmatssc]

Just an observaion , but , since WWII the only time we were attacked was WWII itself (by a country) . It is a lot easier to get behind a war when it's brought to your own shores .


John Quincy Adams , "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."


Funny how we speak so highly of our forefathers when it comes to RKBA , but forget little tidbits like this .

[October]

Read the Sling and Stone 4th generation warfare. From that book and other readings the predominate reason nations win wars if will. At all costs. The side that wants to win at all costs normally prevails. In Asia they think about winning in terms of decades. We think about winning in weeks.

The Cold War is at odds with this theory. The reason the Soviet Union lost was because they couldn’t afford the cost of winning.

There’s a reason we have the term “pyrrhic victory.” Some wins aren’t worth the cost.

[Old Fuff]

Just an observaion , but , since WWII the only time we were attacked was WWII itself (by a country) . It is a lot easier to get behind a war when it's brought to your own shores .

Neither Germany or Japan seriously considered invading the continental United States... They wanted to intimidate us into keeping out of their ball park.

And as I pointed out, this country wasn't dependent on others at that time. It would be nice if this wasn't so today, but the truth is that we have some national interests to defend overseas if we want to keep our way of life.

Of course there are a lot of Leftists that don’t believe we should. The United States with a third-world lifestyle seems attractive to them.

[mbt2001]

Listen, Sun Tzu said millenia ago that War is serious and should not be undertaken lightly...

I believe that there are several problems with the current mode of thought about war. I am not sure how much of it extends to the Pentagon, but obviously there are some misunderstandings.

Iraq is not a war. Iraq if a protracted LA riots situation. In my opinion we need to get the bulk of the troops and equipment out of there and leave 10,000 Army Ranger / Light Infantry type operators with some light armored support and some air support. We should do "snatch and grabs" and assination / Guerrilla war for our part and support the Iraqi army and police who have the main job of securing the borders and country.

We are fighting this like a war... But where are the front lines? Where are the enemy supply lines and the enemy army?

Also, there is no thing as "surgical war" / "precision war". There are tons of Generals who quoted on this point. I will use Sherman. "War is hell." Not just that it sucks to be in war... but literally it is TOTAL. Weapons are prescise, WAR is encompassing...

[ceetee]

WWII was the last time we had clearly defined enemies, with clearly defined borders, a clearly defined mission, and clearly defined allies to fight with. Gulf War I under Poppa Bush comes close.

Americans can't really rally behind the war in Iraq, because they realize that we're not fighting the proper enemy. Saddam never blatantly attacked us the way Japan did at Pearl. Unfortunately, our leaders have decided that settling old grudges is more important than finding and killing those who actually did attack us. These same leaders have decided that it's not good for us to be self-sufficient. They've decided that it's not in our own best interests to produce all of our own energy, food, or consumer goods.

Sheep that we are, we let them tell us what's good for us, instead of telling them how we want our country run.

Baaaaaaaaaaa......

[ptmmatssc]

Old Fuff , whether or not they INTENDED to invade the US , they (japanese) DID attack us . And they , germany/italy/japan did declare war on us .


1941: Germany and Italy declare war on US
Germany and Italy have announced they are at war with the United States. America immediately responded by declaring war on the two Axis powers.

Three days ago, US President Franklin Roosevelt announced America was at war with Japan, the third Axis power, following the surprise attack on its naval base at Pearl Harbor.


Now as far as "national interests" , you of course mean "corporate" interests because there are many things that can be done to be more self sufficient here in the states . Problem is , it does not contribute to the bottom line of certian companies . The only real item that we NEED to get from out of the country is oil . Easy enough to fix , but truthfully , the american people don't want to give up that easy to get and easy to use oil.

[Thefabulousfink]

Unfortunatly now that we are entering an era of ideological wars where the enemy is often indistinguishable from the innocent population, I feel that we are leaving the "Age of Limited Warfare". The religious and factional conflict of the Thirty Years War brought about the death of millions in Europe from conflict, famine, and disease. Fields would be burned to deny the enemy food, entire towns would be raped and killed by invading armies. After the massive, unchecked devistation caused by the Thirty Years War, the nations of Europe decided that wars needed to be fought in a more professional manner. They came up with a series of guidlines limiting what their armies could do to fight the enemy. This generally structured the way that the Europeans fought wars up till the end of WWII.

Limited warfare worked fine against other professional armies, generally helped spare civilians in occupied areas from the autrocites that were common in the Thirty Years War (at least reduced the likelyhood). However, in the post-WWII world we began to realize that limited warfare only has limited results against non-standard enemies. If Ideological conflict spreads, I fear that countries like Israel, who don't have the luxury of fighting a protracted police-action far from their home, will adopt policies of killing the terrorist AND the population that they hide in. Eventually this conflict might reach the point where countries start deciding "it's either US or THEM" and that thousands of innocents killed in anouther country is better than thousands killed in this country.

If it gets this far....then god help us.

[TallPine]

President Bush said he is reading Alistair Horne's account of the conflict, "A Savage War for Peace," to glean insights about the U.S. predicament in Iraq.

Too bad he didn't read some books like that before invading Iraq in 2003 :rolleyes:

[ksnecktieman]

I think we did good. We went into IRAQ, and removed a despotic, vicious dictator. NOW, our troops are in an area where three distinct religious factions have been fighting for 1,500 years, (and may continue that much longer). Our troops are reduced to the position of being "reactive targets". They can NOT fire unless fired on, and even then they have to have witnesses to prove it to the world. I think we should bring them home, OR take off the gloves. I approve of EITHER action. My preference would be to fight this war to the end. What we have now is bad.

If our soldiers take fire from a block in any town,,, any town, there should be an airstrike, or a tomahawk, or a naval bombardment to remove that block and leave nothing living. If that block contains a hospital, or a school, that is the fault of the shooter, not the defender, and we should hold our head high, and say,,, yes, he hid in a hospital, or a school, and he killed the innocents, by his actions, not us.

[Thin Black Line]

The Democrats may pull us out, but if that area goes up in flames we may end up thinking $3.00/gal gas was cheap as the pump price starts to double. If we want to be our own little Fortress America we’d better find a way to become self-sufficient again. Otherwise we’d better learn how to protect our own interests, and get about doing it. Exporting our manufacturing jobs and technology to foreign countries that won’t take what we produce in a one-way Global Economy isn’t going to work either.

I have always been in favor of the Fortress America concept --and not just
because I'm a recovering neo-con. Yes, we need to be self-sufficient and
the course this country has taken over the last few decades has not been
helpful in that regard. Also, we need to come to grips that the age of cheap
oil is about to come to a screeching halt --maybe a train wreck-- and slow
down a bit. This will require people to leave the warm glow of their 50"
plasma TVs, conserve, etc.....all this stuff will have to be done regardless
of how things turn out in the Middle East in the near future.

In regards to War, it's about killing people and destroying things. Re-building
a nation for the same people who you've been recently killing and destroying
their things is not going to go well. It's even harder in an area where people
are not homogeneous. The Middle East is not Germany or Japan.

About the only way for the US to handle the Middle East --if we must intervene
in an actual defensive operation, is to do what the Israelis did in Lebanon
last Summer. You break it and then you leave. You don't sit around
and try to glue all the pieces back together.

You want to take out a terrorist who poses a genuine threat, you kill him.
You want the goods from a particular area, use a middle man. Simple. Done.

[carebear]

ks,

1,500? It goes back 10,000 or more.

The tribes of "Iraq" were fighting each other since long before Islam came along.

They were fighting when they were hunter-gatherers, they were fighting when they were little farming villages, they were fighting when they coalesced into Ur and Babylon and they've continued through today.

The only thing that kept a lid on the internecine squabbling throughout history was when someone got big enough to start putting boots on necks. As soon as they weakened it kicked off again until the next big set of feet popped up.

Until they subsume their tribal and clan and sectarian associations to something resembling a national identity they aren't likely to stop.

Remember, of all the nations of the ME it was thought that Iraq was the most likely to join the grown-up world of nation-states due to its modern history of being secular. Apparently the veneer of civilization was thinner than anyone thought.

[Thin Black Line]

The only thing that kept a lid on the internecine squabbling throughout history was when someone got big enough to start putting boots on necks. As soon as they weakened it kicked off again until the next big set of feet popped up.


It's not "boots on necks" --it's Boots on the Ground.

Apparently the veneer of civilization was thinner than anyone thought.

This is true of anywhere --Najaf, Iraq or Naperville, IL. People are fairly pleasant
when their bellies are full, the TV is on, they have a soft bed, and know they
will have a hot shower in the morning. In fact, they don't even think about
stuff like that --they take it all for granted.

It's those comfortable people who see no "need" for you to have a gun, yet
will be part of the mob pulling people out of cars and breaking into houses
when the lights have been out for too long and their fear turns to anger.

[gc70]

After the massive, unchecked devastation caused by the Thirty Years War, the nations of Europe decided that wars needed to be fought in a more professional manner. They came up with a series of guidelines limiting what their armies could do to fight the enemy.The European rules of war that are cited are a strange beast. The rules originally only applied to "civilized" countries that mutually agreed to abide by those rules. The rules did not apply to native populations in the European countries' colonial empires, at least not until the twentieth century. Somewhat recently, we developed the strange conceit that it wold be nice if everyone played by our rules and that everyone would do so if we wished hard enough for it to happen.

Today, we face opponents who do not subscribe to the carefully choreographed dance referred to as war in western civilization. The sooner we realize that real warfare is not a game won on style points, the sooner we will be able to win when we do have to go to war.

[strambo]

We are not technically "at war" in Iraq or Afghanistan. We certainly can't wage war on an emotion, nor are we fighting any resistance organized or homogenized enough to declare war on.

These are called Stability and Support Operations which fall into the MOOTW (Military Operations Other Than War) category. The aim is to stabalize the security situation enough to build the infra structure. Lots of missions involving presence patrols, handing out humanitarian aid, joint ops with local police and military. You seek to get the populace to recognize the new government as a viable authority and get their buy in as opposed to simple indifference or support for the opposition.

The center of gravity in MOOTW is based on the level of civilian support, civil authority and civilian buy in and commitment, not any military objective like a city captured or # of enemy killed. Neither of these conflicts can be won by killing enemy. There will always be more...the Madrasas in Pakistan turn these whackos out by the thousands.

We get civilian buy in and committment by protecting them, supporting them and creating jobs for them. A contractor earning a good living on a FOB or on projects in town has a lot to lose if the new government fails. Enough of this and you get locals ratting out, or executing insurgents that come in their area. Happens a lot here, Afghanistan is farther along than Iraq...but Iraq isn't nearly as bad as the media (who only report bad stuff) or the defeatist politicians make it out to be.

SASO/MOOTW operations can take a long time, especially in countries as devastated as Iraq and especially A-Stan (not even 3rd world). Stabalizing a 2nd world country that got invaded, then we kicked the invaders back out quickly would be a lot easier.

[raybsc]

The problem arises that the people that pull out their history books, Vietnam etc don't pull out the right book and follow the plan of war.
Check out the Old Testament in the Bible.
Everywhere that Israel carried out Gods method of war, killing everything, men, women, children, livestock, everything, never again did Israel have problems with that people group. However when they failed to follow Gods plan and directions by making agreements or accepting tributes and allowed some of the enemy to survive, that same people(enemy) returned later and caused them more grief. Everytime. What can we learn from this?
If you determine that war is the solution fight it completely or not at all.
We are currently in Iraq because we did not complete the task originally.
We will be back again if we do not destroy the enemy completely.
What we are doing there now only causes trouble, it does not finish it.
If this is a Holy war, we need to fight it as such or be losers.:(

[Thin Black Line]

The rules did not apply to native populations in the European countries' colonial empires, at least not until the twentieth century. Somewhat recently, we developed the strange conceit that it wold be nice if everyone played by our rules and that everyone would do so if we wished hard enough for it to happen.


You bring up a good point. During the time when "chivalry" continued to play
out among countries of the West, their stated policy was "kill all the brutes"
everywhere else.

SASO/MOOTW operations can take a long time, especially in countries as devastated as Iraq and especially A-Stan (not even 3rd world). Stabalizing a 2nd world country that got invaded, then we kicked the invaders back out quickly would be a lot easier.

Agreed. But we stepped into that sunni-shiite thing that had only been put
on hold while Saddam was in power. Religious splinter cults that seek to
blow up their former "brothers" during major religious holidays do not form
overnight, nor only a couple years. There was weird stuff I ran into in Iraq
that had no resemblance to any mainstream form of Islam.

I'm not sure how the US can intervene without appearing to promote Sunni
over Shiite (or vice versa), or one splinter within one or the other, to the
people that live there. The Sunni will complain we (the US) are favoring
the Shiite and vice versa. This is where it becomes a no win situation.

Since books are a little too long for most people to read I would suggest a
movie called The Man Who Would be King when it comes to Western involvement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpp-r58UhrU

If this is a Holy war, we need to fight it as such or be losers.

Nothing wrong with leaving the area israeli style as I mentioned previously.
2 Kings 3

[JohnL2]

Also, there is no thing as "surgical war" / "precision war". There are tons of Generals who quoted on this point. I will use Sherman. "War is hell." Not just that it sucks to be in war... but literally it is TOTAL. Weapons are prescise, WAR is encompassing...

I'd like to add to that. The full quote is "War is Hell. You cannot refine it.".
He also said, "Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.".

Somehow we don't like to learn from the figures who have walked through the fire. We think we know better.
Even if you are taught the material, it is seriously watered down to the point of out of context vapidness.

[Library Guy]

Never make enemies faster than you are capable of killing them.

LG Roy

[longeyes]

The Cold War is at odds with this theory. The reason the Soviet Union lost was because they couldn’t afford the cost of winning.

Who says they lost? Look around you at the values of America's elites. We are the Soviet Union redux. This is all out of the Antonio Gramsci playbook, set in motion decades ago.

[agricola]

Its an appealing theory, though for that matter it doesnt go far enough (Old Fuff comes closest) - the vast superiority of the West (and for that matter the Soviet Union in Afganistan) is irrelevant because that superiority is never brought to bear - the war / counterinsurgency campaigns are (now) always fought at or closer to the level of the "weak" opponent - individual or small-unit actions predominate, and there is no overwhelming use of force. The various nations of the West have entered almost all their wars since World War 2 (with the exception of the Falklands) with one or more of its limbs tied behind its back.

This is a somewhat perverse situation given the vast bulk of military history up to and including the Second World War (especially the two atomic bombs on Japan) demonstrating the opposite view - that if you are going to fight you had better commit sufficient force with sufficient backing to beat the enemy, even if this is overwhelming force when viewed against the enemy and results in vast enemy / enemy civilian casualties - the important thing is you win with as little loss to yourself as possible. To use a recent example, had the army going against Falluja in 2004 been Roman, Mongol, Medieval, Islamic, Macedonian, Spanish or almost any of the great powers of history, they would have given the occupants the chance to surrender, then (if it was refused), would have besieged it, took it and sacked it, giving no further thought to the wellbeing of the occupants. Instead we find ourselves in worse trouble three years down the line and with no end in sight.

This reluctance to take the gloves off is, of course, is a relatively new development (mostly since the Second World War) in military affairs, largely because of the increased concern over civilian casualties, combined with more scrutiny of military matters by the media (allegedly) on behalf of society, and its unquestioned acceptance as part of "the laws of war" since Nuremburg, even though it has no historical basis and is, in any case, probably self-defeating, since there are numerous occasions in which the use of overwhelming force to terrorize an opponent ends wars that might otherwise have dragged on for years.

[ceetee]

Still and all, though, this all presumes a clearly defined enemy, and a clear and compelling reason to fight. The waters we swim in today are murky at best. Since we have no clear reason why our servicemen and women have been sent out to fight, we're in the tenuous position of giving them all the support we can, while having no faith that their cause is a just one. We merely hope that eventually there will be an end, and that they come through it and see that end unharmed.

Also, since there's no clear reason why a certain population has been defined as our enemy, we see no reason to go carpet-bomb them off the planet. We know that whatever tasks "our boys" are set to will be accomplished... we can only hope that not too much death is incurred as a result.

[Thin Black Line]

This is all out of the Antonio Gramsci playbook...

I haven't heard that name since my Russian Studies days. Beria was much
more interesting from the hands-on perspective. This also brings up the use
of stealth, surprise, etc when it comes to the use of force. Do we warn an
enemy for months on end about an attack or just do it in a flash, without
warning, and withdraw? What about the reliance on air power if the objective
is not to hold ground and pacify a population, but rather to strike a blow?


Also, since there's no clear reason why a certain population has been defined as our enemy, we see no reason to go carpet-bomb them off the planet.

Such wholesale destruction would not be appropriate in my morals or beliefs.
But, under what circumstances would this be acceptable to most people today?

Survival in warfare, whether as a nation or man to man, has been the ability
to quickly strike a deadly blow from a distance. This is why the guy
with the assault rifle has a better chance defeating the guy with the .25
pocket pistol. But, what if the guy hides among the crowd in a market?
What if there are 1/2 dozen guys in the crowd? Of course, we are not going
to pull back and bomb the crowded market to get the bad guys --that would
make us no better than when the bad guys bomb the market to inflict terror.

I guess we have to ask ourselves how we could pacify and search the entire
crowd --especially among people who would not appreciate us even being
there. Or, is it better to use the same stealthy tactics, move amongst
the crowd, and observe until the target is acquired.....and wait patiently.

No one stays in the crowded market forever.

[Orthonym]

-of which I've read.

There was this one guy, Hinton Helper by name, who was opposed to slavery because it brought (horrors!) Negroes (OMG!) into the country. I actually looked into a book of his, printed 1850-something, paper still white, and they even let me check it out from the Ga. Tech library!

But.

There was also one of the Virginia Randolphs, I think, who was not a racist, but definately a slaver, who believed as Aristotle that most people had the "slave nature", whatever their color, and that people like him really were born booted and spurred to ride them.

[Orthonym]

Um, I meant definitely, not definately. Sorry.

[longeyes]

I haven't heard that name since my Russian Studies days. Beria was much
more interesting from the hands-on perspective.

This is a war on two fronts--or levels. The military and the cultural. Gramsci said to bore from within the cultural, infiltrate all of the social, economic, and moral underpinnings of a nation and transform it incrementally from inside.

Is it happening? You decide.

[ceetee]

Such wholesale destruction would not be appropriate in my morals or beliefs.
But, under what circumstances would this be acceptable to most people today?

It depends on how you define your enemy. One strategy during WWII was to drop liberal quantities of bombs over targets of military value. "Military value" meant everything from fuel storage to train stations. It was understood that not every bomb would hit a military target. Civilian losses were accepted as part of fighting the war. A case could be made that since a large number of civilians were actively employed in industries that directly fed the war effort (making munitions, war equipment, and the like) those "civilian" trargets were fair game.

The situation we find ourselves in now, though, is completely different. We've given ourselves billing as "liberators", but instead of liberating a subjected people, we're being seen (rightly or wrongly) as conquerors, and the orders our leaders are giving are making our personnel act the part of "boot on neck" conquerors. The rightness or wrongness of what we've done can be debated for years. What remains to be seen is... How do we extricate ourselves from the mire? Further, how do it in such a way as to be to our advantage, ant not to our disadvantage?

[Thin Black Line]

Civilian losses were accepted as part of fighting the war. A case could be made that since a large number of civilians were actively employed in industries that directly fed the war effort (making munitions, war equipment, and the like) those "civilian" trargets were fair game.


This is also the justification that terrorists use when they launch katushas
into civilian areas of Israel --they state killing women and children will reduce
the future male "occupiers" who would be available to the Israeli army.

How do we extricate ourselves from the mire? Further, how do it in such a way as to be to our advantage, ant not to our disadvantage?

This is why I go back to the Fortress America concept additionally modeled
on the way Switzerland maintains their borders, homeland defense, and
foreign policy with the rest of the world.

[Lonestar]

I think the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, is that in Afghanistan we had a good relationship with the local opposition and was able to help select good, strong candidates for the future president and government. That's is what I love about the Green Berets, they sneak in and help the opposition, all we needed to do in Afganistan was assist the opposition, and everything went well (except the whole getting Bin Laden part).

If we would have kept on going in the First gulf war, backed the opposition, instead of letting Saddam slaughter them, we would have more better, stronger Iraqi people willing to step up after Saddam's downfall.

[ilbob]

Better yet, get Turkey to agree to a Kurdish state, and let the Kurds do their own thing, let the Sunnis have their chunk, and the Shia there little chunk. Give the population a year or so to move to where they want to be, and then just leave and let them work things out. The attempt to make the three groups that hate each other work together is going to take a lot of outside military force to accomplish.

[Stretchman]

Didn't work in India with Pakistan, and won't work here. You want a solution to the situation. Pick a side and stay on it. Be it Shiite, or Sunni, choose and commit. Otherwise, forget about it. If republicans and democrats started going at it, there's no way anyone could stop them without promising a whole lot of collateral damage for both sides. We need to pull the ground troops back from the cities, and show them what an IED looks like when it comes on the tip of a cruise missile. We could hang out in the desert, or make some space of our own somewhere, and concentrate on the real reason we are there, which is oil.

We need to get the heck out of Baghdad. Period.

And we need to stop caring about whether or not the Iraqis ever get their heads together. We need to start worrying about the oil, and maybe the opiates, and how to get them from there to here, without the problems we are having now. That's where we need to invest our money. Then the Iraqis, sunnis, shia, and kurds will have enough money there to blow each other to kingdom come if they want. I personally don't care.

Long as they don't touch the oil, the money will keep rolling in for them, and they can shoot it out like the gunfight at the OK Corral. Me, I'll be playing the theme from the Beverly Hillbillies, and singing all the way to the bank.

Do you really think there's another reason for this? Really? Do you think that they think there's another reason? Really truely? Come on, take some advice, and go for what you really know. Go for broke. Go for the real victory. And waste anyone who stands in your way. CNN and the hippies may not think much of you, but by golly, the arabs sure will. You will be speaking a language that they fully understand after that. And they, in turn will be speaking to you one that they do. Of course, after that, they will eventually get us to leave, but not before the infrastructure is in place for them to do what they want. Without messing with the US again. And there will be peace in the Mid east. Once the people who live there, whose country it is, can be allowed to be right about something. And that something is that all the Americans really want is the oil. Which, IMO, is true.

SO stop the lie, and do what we went there to do, and get it over with, so our troops can come home, and Ford can sell trucks again.

Stretch
Quit cigs 4W 12h 25m ago. So far saved $171.10, 1,140 cigs not smoked and counting ...

[Thin Black Line]

If we would have kept on going in the First gulf war, backed the opposition, instead of letting Saddam slaughter them, we would have more better, stronger Iraqi people willing to step up after Saddam's downfall.

According to Baer there were oh so many opportunies to do this, including
with Iraqi generals in his book. There were many many other missed opportunities
in the ME thanks to the politicos.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,631433,00.html

We need to pull the ground troops back from the cities, and show them what an IED looks like when it comes on the tip of a cruise missile. We could hang out in the desert, or make some space of our own somewhere,

Going back to my "bad guys in the crowd at the market" this would mean
opting for a sniper which requires a good position from which to observe
and act when the opportunity presents itself. Acting requires an exit --an
escape route-- lest it becomes a suicide mission. The exit route must be
planned in advance. Obviously, this is a current problem as are the ever
changing targets.

Another course of action is to use someone who is a native to that market.

I think the part of the problem is that the politicos are in bed with too many
people in the market and there is too much pillow talk. We have left the
concept of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations,
entangling alliances with none" (Jefferson). We could never be everyone's
friend, but we also have too many entangling alliances when it comes to
our commerce with other nations.

Probably makes it very difficult to give the sniper team a green light even
when the target presents itself if one is also worried how it will affect business
the next day. I'm talking wholesale business with one of the venders, not
the shoppers walking around.

[MacEntyre]

IIRC, WWII was the last time congress declared war.

Why do we eschew declarations of war?

[QuestionEverything]

Here's a little question for the posters in this thread... if the US was invaded and taken over by a foreign military seeking to install a new government they saw as being more just, would you throw flowers and greet them as liberators? Or would you snipe and blow up the occupying troops whenever you got the chance? The insurgents in Iraq are motivated by patriotism, no more and no less.

[gc70]

The insurgents in Iraq are motivated by patriotism, no more and no less.Patriotism to what? Iraqis appear to be deeply devoted to their tribe, clan, or religious sect, but have limited identification with a national entity defined by lines on a map.

[QuestionEverything]

Accounts by Iraqis I've read suggest that they do identify with Iraq to a degree (the war with Iran helped foment Iraqi nationalism), and most feel a strong allegiance to the regions in which they live. Fallujah, for instance, was known for being fiercely independent; after taking power, Saddam appointed a governor of Fallujah who was killed the next day. Saddam appointed another governor who lived for two days, and after that Saddam only meddled with Fallujah when he really needed to. The Sunnis and Shias both have coherent territories, and both now have the experience of being pushed around by foreign troops who can kill with seeming impunity.

[carebear]

If the US was invaded and taken over by a foreign military seeking to install a new government they saw as being more just, would you throw flowers and greet them as liberators?


If my government was run by a vicious tyrant and the new government being set up offered self-determination and real freedom? Then, yeah, I sure would jump on the "let's get this up and rolling so you can go home" bandwagon.

I wouldn't act in such a way as to impede my own path towards freedom and I wouldn't tolerate those who did.

[Thin Black Line]

Or would you snipe and blow up the occupying troops whenever you got the chance? The insurgents in Iraq are motivated by patriotism, no more and no less.

I take it you are suggesting a flip of "Red Dawn" where Americans are now
the soviet paratroopers and the Iraqis are the Wolverines? Be careful
since that will certainly confuse and inflame people here. Next thing you
know and someone will suggest we are the mohawk guys following the
Lord Humongous in the "Road Warrior."

I just saw yesterday in the news that the US gave Afghanistan a lot of
military equipment.....that did remind me of the soviets in the late 80s....

Invading a country that was a threat and an active participant in war (such
as the allies in Germany in WWII) is acceptable. Likewise, giving an ally,
protectorate, etc military equipment is acceptable. I have always been one
who believes in helping people help themselves. I guess we would have to
seriously question our involvement to help one religious faction over another
though. However, the US is doing just that right now in the ME. I find that
interesting considering the Christian heritage of the US and the fact that it
is leaving Christians out to dry, well let's be honest --DIE, in other countries
around the world right now.

I think we can say we are a completely secular nation now when it comes to
our foreign policy since our principal goals appear entirely economic. This
was becoming established back in the 1960s with the Congo.

[Thin Black Line]

I wanted to add this comment from General Casey yesterday since it is
key to the title of this thread:

"And I was reluctant throughout the fall to ask for additional forces ... when I knew I didn't have the political commitment from the Iraqis to allow us to do our jobs," Casey said.

Italics by TBL

[QuestionEverything]

If my government was run by a vicious tyrant and the new government being set up offered self-determination and real freedom? Then, yeah, I sure would jump on the "let's get this up and rolling so you can go home" bandwagon.

Even if a few of your family members were killed by aerial bombardment? In the months before the Iraq war I had a co-worker who lived in Yugoslavia when it broke apart. He told me that even when people hate their leader, they will choose his rule over domination by an outside power. Democracy isn't something you can force on a society; it has to develop by itself.

It's also amusing to listen to people say we needed to oust Saddam because he was such a brutal dictator. Uzbekistan's leader Islam Karimov enjoys boiling political prisoners alive and has ordered his troops to fire on demonstrations of his own people, but that's okay because he's a member of the "Coalition of the Willing." The state of Iraqi politics today makes it pretty clear that the country can only be stable under a theocratic government or under a dictator tough enough to keep the rival sects from fighting. Iraq is by all accounts less free and more dangerous to the US than it was before the war, since the theocrats are now free to shoot people who don't follow Sharia law and promote terrorism. And let's not forget that Saddam himself used to be a good buddy of the US:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

More info at this link: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[carebear]

I'm sorry, perhaps I misunderstood that the question you asked me was what would I do, in my country? Not some theocratic moron in Uzbekistan or Iraq?

See, since I and my freedom-loving neighbors wouldn't be giving aid and commfort to those who supported tyranny, the chances of a bomb landing anywhere near my house would be low. We'd form an armed neighborhood watch and kill the pro-tyranny guys ourselves if they were stupid enough to show up in our neighborhood, saving our liberators the cost of a bomb. We'd give those liberators complete information on where the pro-tyranny insurgents were hiding and info on whatever plans of theirs I knew.

And since I love liberty, I wouldn't view that liberation as "domination as an outside power" merely as a helping hand. Since the liberators have stated they don't intend to stay and I can see by their own history they only leave military bases behind in willing countrys, even those of their defeated former enemies*, I wouldn't have reason to fear a real "conquest", simply the removal of the tyrant and his supporters, info on setting up a constitutional republic, a bit of assistance thereof and maybe some reconstruction aid.

After that I could look forward to enjoying democracy and having a nice powerful ally and trading partner.

*Germany, the rest of occupied and occupying Europe, Japan, South Korea, ad nauseum

[Thin Black Line]

Since the liberators have stated they don't intend to stay and I can see by their own history they only leave military bases behind in willing countrys, even those of their defeated former enemies*, I wouldn't have reason to fear a real "conquest", simply the removal of the tyrant and his supporters, info on setting up a constitutional republic, a bit of assistance thereof and maybe some reconstruction aid.

After that I could look forward to enjoying democracy and having a nice powerful ally and trading partner.


Good point. I would say this is why things are working better in Afghanistan
than Iraq due to the attitude of the general populace. Also, by intervening
in Afghan we in effect did away with a foreign ruling system --the Taliban.
Unlike the Sovs and the Tal, we are not trying to supress the native culture
and religion. We are not actively trying to supress the mainstream religions
in Iraq either, but again, it's native public perception of being sleighted by
the "outsiders" whenever we do intervene to protect the population from violence
and we just haven't been winning on that one. Hence, we can have the superior
force, a certain amount of submission, and mediocre cooperation at best.
American opinion about how we're doing in Iraq is completely irrelevant when
we've lost the public image war among the Iraqi populace. That's who
really matters "over there" when it comes to cooperation.

That's kind of where I would tell the semi-friendly vender "If there's something
really bad about to go down, let us know in advance and we'll see what we
can do from the rooftop next door." A certain amount of self-interest in
their own survival will come into play.

[QuestionEverything]

It must be nice living in such a black and white world. A whole ton of innocent Iraqis died during the initial invasion; such things are unavoidable in war. Those daisy-cutters don't care whether the people in their blast radius hate freedom or not, you know. Anyone who would support a foreign invader can't (or doesn't want to) imagine the devastation and misery that even a relatively good-intentioned occupying force will cause.

Conquest is exactly what the US has been doing in Iraq; the oil's being stolen and all the reconstruction contracts are given to Halliburton and other US firms instead of Iraqi companies that desperately need a boost. Iraq now has a puppet government no less corrupt than Saddam, theocratic militias are running rampant and electric power lasts about two hours each day. Democracy isn't in the Iraqis' political DNA, and anyone there would tell you they were much better off under Saddam. If the US does withdraw and leave the Iraqis to vote for a leader, they will immediately vote in theocrats who abolish democracy.

Germany and Japan are much different from Iraq; they initiated the war instead of having it forced on them like the Iraqis, and both of those countries had a strong national identity and some history of constitutional government before WWII. The US was also genuinely interested in helping those countries become functional democracies and provided them with economic support instead of pillaging their resources as in Iraq.

As for this thread's original topic, the reason for the lacking support of the Vietnam and Iraq wars is that neither had any merit, and the American people know this. The former was based on the "domino theory" that history has proven to be false, while the latter has no coherent justification other than "we want to steal their oil." The Founding Fathers would never have approved of the US playing global cop.

[carebear]

It must be nice living in such a black and white world. A whole ton of innocent Iraqis died during the initial invasion; such things are unavoidable in war. Those daisy-cutters don't care whether the people in their blast radius hate freedom or not, you know. Anyone who would support a foreign invader can't (or doesn't want to) imagine the devastation and misery that even a relatively good-intentioned occupying force will cause.

Oh really. Care to name the urban locations all those-daisy cutters were dropped in? Collateral damage does occur and the innocent suffer. That's why the French were out there killing Americans after D-day... Oh wait. :rolleyes: As for the other contention, I'm a bit of an amateur historian, military at that, and I was in the Marine Corps for 13 years. I'm familiar with the "devastation and misery" of modern war, I don't have to "imagine" it.

Conquest is exactly what the US has been doing in Iraq; the oil's being stolen and all the reconstruction contracts are given to Halliburton and other US firms instead of Iraqi companies that desperately need a boost.

Care to present some facts? The oil that isn't being stolen by insurgents and sold in Syria to finance their terror against other religious sects, or prevented by being sold to try to starve the current elected government of money by those same insurgents, is being sold on behalf of the Iraqi government, and that's where the money goes. Where it is paid out is controlled by contracts. Iraqi firms are being used where appropriate and where they have the skills and manpower to be anything but an impediment. Is there waste and inefficiency and even corruption? Yep, but as it is found and reported, it is being fixed. As far as the "Halliburton" conspiracy" idiocy... Do a search, worldwide, for contracting firms with the experience and resources to manage the rebuilding of an entire country. Take your time. Those "no bid" contracts were in place for the most part before the war began simply because there aren't that many company's in existence that could even begin to do the management. After WWII we had whole government bureaucracies dedicated to reconstruction. Today "privatization" is the name of the game across the board, no malfeasance needed to explain.

Iraq now has a puppet government no less corrupt than Saddam, theocratic militias are running rampant and electric power lasts about two hours each day. Democracy isn't in the Iraqis' political DNA, and anyone there would tell you they were much better off under Saddam.

Iraq's government was elected democratically and is certainly a bit more contentious with us than a "puppet" would be. Equally corrupt? I think there's probably less money going into Swiss Bank accounts now than under Saddam. Care to give me some quotes from Iraqis or our guys in the sandbox right now who will support that "ask any Iraqi" blatant falsehood you just stated? That's a cocky claim right there.

If the US does withdraw and leave the Iraqis to vote for a leader, they will immediately vote in theocrats who abolish democracy.

Proof? They might, but you sure are psychic with all this stuff you know... Or is it just what you read in the papers?

Germany and Japan are much different from Iraq; they initiated the war instead of having it forced on them like the Iraqis, and both of those countries had a strong national identity and some history of constitutional government before WWII.

Yep, but irrelevent. My reference to Germany and Japan was in regard to our history with them as defeated enemies. My point was that history shows we are even non-coercive to former enemies, much less folks we actually like. Any one who cares to look can see we have never been "conquerors" or "occupiers" in any meaningful definition of the word. When folks ask us to leave, we go. If they don't want us to have bases, we remove them. Usually after helping them with any problems we may have caused and even those we haven't.

The US was also genuinely interested in helping those countries become functional democracies and provided them with economic support instead of pillaging their resources as in Iraq.

Got any documentation, any documentation at all, to support your "out to pillage" claim? Keep looking.

As for this thread's original topic, the reason for the lacking support of the Vietnam and Iraq wars is that neither had any merit, and the American people know this. The former was based on the "domino theory" that history has proven to be false, while the latter has no coherent justification other than "we want to steal their oil."

Based on released documents from the time, the "domino theory" was less a factor for getting involved in Vietnam originally than was the ongoing concept of "containment" of Communism. Which had been US policy since the 40's. The domino theory was given as a reason, and given that Cambodia and Laos ended up dealing with Communism-related problems (due in part to incompetent US meddling) I would hardly call it so much "false" as "overstated".

The Iraq war had numerous justifications, only one of which, active WMD program, appears to be a mistaken assumption. (And not one we made in a vacuum, there were a lot of people and governments who believed the same thing). Again, you allege "stealing oil" and yet I have seen no documentation of that given by motivated people on both sides of the aisle (and in the world community) with much better access to info than you.

If that was a charge that could be even suggested intelligently, some anti-war type with credibility would have made it.

The Founding Fathers would never have approved of the US playing global cop.

On this we agree. But I'm not willing to make unverifiable, illogical and, in some cases, outright false statements to support it.

[Thin Black Line]

Anyone who would support a foreign invader can't (or doesn't want to) imagine the devastation and misery that even a relatively good-intentioned occupying force will cause.


I've been to Iraq and know what that looks like. I also know what a broken
down infrastructure looks like due to post-invasion internal public apathy. It
wasn't the "invader" who stripped all the electrical lines off the poles to sell
for the copper content, blew the freshwater main into town, etc.

The Founding Fathers would never have approved of the US playing global cop.

On this we agree. But I'm not willing to make unverifiable, illogical and, in some cases, outright false statements to support it.

Yes, most of us on THR agree on the "US shouldn't play global cop" thing,
but that is now our justification for remaining in Iraq --at least on the
surface. However, to say that our involvement there has nothing to do
with oil is ignoring global resource reality. Let's face it we're dealing with a
market vendor who has the largest single reserve of olive oil and we need
it to light our lamps and fry our nachos on our distant side of this global
village. You could say our vendor is having some "family problems" right
now and it's hard to tell who's going to be the shopkeeper at this point.
And, if we're not globocop in this case, then we're globo-dept-of-child-services
and we're deciding who gets custody of the kid who is heir to the family
olive oil business.

So let's not go through this like we're Polyanna. This is about force of arms
and what we expect to get out of it, isn't it?

[QuestionEverything]

Iraqi firms are being used where appropriate and where they have the skills and manpower to be anything but an impediment. Is there waste and inefficiency and even corruption? Yep, but as it is found and reported, it is being fixed. As far as the "Halliburton" conspiracy" idiocy... Do a search, worldwide, for contracting firms with the experience and resources to manage the rebuilding of an entire country. Take your time. Those "no bid" contracts were in place for the most part before the war began simply because there aren't that many company's in existence that could even begin to do the management.

According to Iraqis, local firms haven't been getting much business at all. See the blog link below for more. Many bridges were destroyed during the invasion, and while Iraq has many skilled engineers and companies that could have managed the reconstruction, Halliburton was contracted to do that at ten times what it would have cost to have Iraqis do the job. And if Halliburton really is the best-equipped company to rebuild Iraq, surely they could stomach a little competition? I thought you would object to such socialist practices as no-bid contracts.

Iraq's government was elected democratically and is certainly a bit more contentious with us than a "puppet" would be. Equally corrupt? I think there's probably less money going into Swiss Bank accounts now than under Saddam. Care to give me some quotes from Iraqis or our guys in the sandbox right now who will support that "ask any Iraqi" blatant falsehood you just stated? That's a cocky claim right there.

You can take your information straight from the horse's mouth at Riverbend's blog:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_riverbendblog_archive.html

She's an Iraqi who's been writing since shortly after the invasion and discusses at great length the deteriorating conditions in Iraq following the war. Before the war, she and many other Iraqi women would walk the streets alone in T-shirts and jeans. Now women don't dare to leave their homes without a male companion and at least a hijab. Girls are sometimes attacked with acid if theocratic militiamen don't like what they're wearing.

The evil commie libruls at the Washington Post have this article to offer, discussing the disappearance of Iraq's educated professional class:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/22/AR2006012201112.html

The socialists at the National Intelligence Council have a grim prognosis for Iraq's future:

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070202_release.pdf

"...even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time frame of this Estimate."

Saying Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam is just... something else. Kidnappings, ransoms and killings are an everyday thing there now. The infrastructure's been devastated and hasn't yet been restored. A hundred thousand Iraqis have died since the invasion at the very least, and the real figure is likely two or three times that.


Quote:
If the US does withdraw and leave the Iraqis to vote for a leader, they will immediately vote in theocrats who abolish democracy.
Proof? They might, but you sure are psychic with all this stuff you know... Or is it just what you read in the papers?

Islamic fundie militias have more pull in Iraqi society than anyone else by far at this time. Knowing that, my conclusion wasn't too hard to draw. Ironically, probably the only way the US could prevent a theocracy is to dig up the remaining members of the Ba'ath party and return them to power with a new dictator. The Ba'athists are the only secular group in Iraq with enough recognition and influence to keep the fundies down.

Got any documentation, any documentation at all, to support your "out to pillage" claim? Keep looking.

No contracts for Iraqis, record Halliburton profits, a country with some of the world's richest oil fields whose people now live without basic utilities...

The Iraq war had numerous justifications, only one of which, active WMD program, appears to be a mistaken assumption.

Like which ones? "Saddam supported terrorists?" Saddam was a secular leader who had Al Qaeda members shot on sight, and Bin Laden referred to him as an infidel. The Ba'ath party was one of the main forces holding back radical Islam. "Saddam was an evil dictator?" Yeah, no kidding. So why are we buddy-buddy with Uzbekistan and lots of other totalitarian countries instead of "liberating" them? Every prediction the anti-war side made before the invasion has come true--the war destabilized the region, provoked a global wave of anti-Americanism, bred many new terrorists and enriched Bush's corporate pals while Iraqis suffered. The pro-war camp was wrong about Iraq being a short conflict, wrong about the troops being showered with rose petals and wrong about a hundred other things but they're going to "stay the course" until we have another 50,000 names to put on a black wall in DC. Maybe even longer.

[carebear]

There's a distinction between attempting to ensure free trade, which is the only "Empire" the US has really attempted to pursue, one that ensures nations the ability to peaceably trade, and attempting to conquer countries and force them to trade only to us, or at prices we dictate.

We aren't doing that, we didn't go into Iraq to do that. We aren't now nor are we going to be "stealing" anything from Iraq. They are and will remain free to sell their oil on the world market.

That changes the motive from "all about oil for us" to "all about trade for everybody", which is in no way ignoble.

[Art Eatman]

The thread began with the premise that local cooperation makes the difference between sucess or failure/stalemate.

Few posts relate to that idea. Daisy cutters and Red Dawns just don't quite marry up. :)

"...or else."

Art

[carebear]

On the contracts, according to which Iraqi's? Do you have documentation they were capable of doing what they say? That they weren't investigated by the people on the ground? Remember we're dealing with a culture that uses exaggerration of ability as normal negotiating technique and can take reasonable refusals as insults.

Marine Corps Gazette Jan '07 "Twenty-Seven Articles of Lawrence of Arabia: A perspective on training Iraqi's during OIF" Maj. Dunne

I prefer to use sources from our military men on the ground, especially those writing in the professional journals, as they pull no punches and tend toward objectivity and use professional detachment.

Riverbend eh?

I also recommend before hitching your wagon to any source of info, you do a bit of research and see what other sources are saying, weigh the credibility and be aware that some folks who agree with you have ulterior motives of their own. Treat any non-documentable source as you would one of those chain emails. This took me googling "river bend blog" and flipping through a few pages of anti's citing her as gospel. About two minutes and her credibility and objectivity is challenged from a number of directions, in this case in one page.

One of many Bloggers who have serious questions about Riverbend's objectivity...

http://www.lies.com/wp/2004/03/20/riverbend-on-iraq-one-year-later/

http://crymeariverii.blogspot.com/2004/06/who-is-riverbend.html

This is from an American, but near the bottom you’ll see a quote from someone who knows Riverbend personally. The especially interesting point in that post is an analysis of Riverbends story of trying to get her old job back. It’s a good read, and I recomend it. It sheds light on why her story likely has so many inconsistencies. There’s been many times Riverbend has subtly given hints as to who and what she and her family are. I could see it before I read the above link, and it makes even more sense now. She’s likely the daughter of a Baath party ambassador, most likely to the U.S. (pre Gulf War), Canada, or England. It’s not just the American who writes the above linked blog that disputes the factuality of her posts and her story. Many Iraqis have done the same.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_09_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#109613731630697467
Gives a point by point blow of a recent post of full of Riverbend’s typical distortions.

Zeyad at “Healing Iraq” http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ has also disputed many of Riverbend’s claims, though indirectly and without mentioning her by name as he tries to remain above the infighting in the “blogsphere”. There have also been many comments in Zeyads blog by Iraqis who know, or claim to know, Riverbend and her family. Most of these are no longer available though because his comment section apparently deletes old comments to enable the storage of new ones. One of these such comments are quoted in link at the top of my post.

You don’t have to believe what other westerners and I have posted about Riverbend. However, it would be wise to look at the evidence with an open mind. I’ve seen many people believe word for word everything Riverbend says just because she is anti-occupation. All the while completely ignoring the inconsistencies of what she says compared to what most other Iraqis, pro and anti American alike are saying.

as for your last few responses...

Repeating the same claims without citation is not evidence.

Citing the Baath Party as a better choice than radical Islam is saying you'd rather be killed by tyrants for secular, tribal reasons than by tyrants for religious, tribal ones. Neither one offered freedom except for folks who toed the party line. The fledgling democracy is a third way.

Also, we did have a short, victorious war against Saddam's army, we were feted as liberators after the invasion (except for Baath Party loyalists) and have had a free election with incredible participation. I'm not defending the war as right or well-thought out but to not acknowledge objective truth is to not be a credible opponant.

And, again, I am not here to defend the Iraq war, consider this my last criticism of your partisan, unfactually documented little rants.

I was saying that I, like the French, like the Belgians and even like many Germans, would not fight a foreign liberator who happened to make the statements the US has and has a history of living up to them as far as freeing people from tyranny and then leaving and letting them keep their freedom.

[another okie]

I don't want to get into the main argument, but I would like to point out that even during World War II we did import oil, though it came from other Western Hemisphere countries, such as Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela. Our involvement in the Middle East after WW II was because the British were pulling back and because our planners knew we would need quantities of oil far greater than before to run the kind of economy we would have after the war. Knowing this would be the case FDR made a trip to the Middle East during the war to suck up to the King of Saudi Arabia. We were not self-sufficient in oil during the war or during the 50s or 60s. It just wasn't a big issue because it went smoothly.

[longeyes]

Here's a little question for the posters in this thread... if the US was invaded and taken over by a foreign military seeking to install a new government they saw as being more just, would you throw flowers and greet them as liberators? Or would you snipe and blow up the occupying troops whenever you got the chance? The insurgents in Iraq are motivated by patriotism, no more and no less.

One thing I wouldn't be doing is driving trucks filled with explosives into a marketplace to kill my own fellow citizens trying to buy food for dinner.

[thexrayboy]

Wars are not won or lost soley by the size and might of the combatants. They are won by being committed to victory. If you are willing to fight to the last man in a conflict you and your's will never be defeated, killed perhaps but not defeated. If you are not willing to win at any costs and your opponent know this you have lost the war before the battle has even begun.

Fundamental Islamists are willing to die for their goals. They view death as a reward and an honor. We can never really hope to defeat fundamental Islam.
The best we can hope is that they will change their belief structure to one that relinquishes the need to kill, convert or enslave nonmuslims. Till that happens we can only hold them at arms length and limit the damage they try to inflict on us. We can perhaps eliminate Islam, that is debatable, but unless their basic belief structures change we cannot defeat them, only kill them. So regretfully I vote we kill them rather than let them kill us.

The viet communists were willing to make enormous sacrifices in lives and goods to win the war in Vietnam. Just how far they would go we cannot know for certain. What we do know is our media gave them the hope needed to continue. They learned from the managed media in the US that they did not have to defeat our forces. They merely had to survive long enough for the pussy wussies to force us to leave. All subsequent opponents have taken the same tack since then. They try to bloody our noses to the point where the whiny liberals start crying about an unwinnable war and the media circus chimes in to force Washington to withdraw. With the exception of the first gulf war this strategy has worked. It worked in Somalia, it worked in Beirut and it is working now in Iraq. Once the pacifists force us to leave Iraq they will target the war in Afghanistan. Americans now have a microwave mentality, if we cannot accomplish something immediately it must be a mistake and we need to quit.

[strambo]

Here's a little question for the posters in this thread... if the US was invaded and taken over by a foreign military seeking to install a new government they saw as being more just, would you throw flowers and greet them as liberators?
Well, that all depends on the nature of the government now doesn't it? Now, no, I'd fight. If our govt. was like Saddams...hell yeah, I'd cheer and help.

Longeyes nailed it too...even if I was fighing an invading army...that means I'd be fighting the FOREIGN invaders. I wouldn't 1st of all be from say Pakistan fighting supposed invaders in Iraq. 2nd, I wouldn't be fighting a freely elected government of my own people...oh, and I wouldn't be blowing up the innocent civilians of said country. I read intel reports every single day when I was there. The "foreign invaders" suffered by far the least casualties, innocent Iraqi civilians and govt. workers suffered the most.

[Thin Black Line]

We can perhaps eliminate Islam, that is debatable....

We can not "eliminate Islam" and that is not debatable. In many parts of the
world it is the fastest growing religion and in some places in Europe has a
higher level of attendence for services than the other practiced religions,
including Christianity. What we can debate is how to support or oppose the
various branches of Islam. Americans, especially thanks to AM talk radio,
think that Islam is "one religion" when in fact it is just as diverse as Christianity
with its many Churches and belief systems, ie, from the United Church of
Christ to the Russian Orthodox Church.

When it comes to local cooperation, again it is how our actions are perceived.
If the local population believes we are against their religion (no matter what
it is), I can guarantee you that is the quickest way to lose their support and
fuel an opposition movement. You can have all the superior force you want
and never win over the people. If your goal later becomes to eliminate them
rather than thave some sort of trade with them, then it becomes a self-fulfulling
prophecy for the radical elements of the opposition.

[Thin Black Line]

They merely had to survive long enough for the pussy wussies to force us to leave. All subsequent opponents have taken the same tack since then. They try to bloody our noses to the point where the whiny liberals start crying about an unwinnable war and the media circus chimes in to force Washington to withdraw. With the exception of the first gulf war this strategy has worked. It worked in Somalia, it worked in Beirut and it is working now in Iraq. Once the pacifists force us to leave Iraq they will target the war in Afghanistan. Americans now have a microwave mentality, if we cannot accomplish something immediately it must be a mistake and we need to quit.


Again, this is something else that the AM talk radio tries to confuse and obfuscate.
Since I was one of the people who atually had a nose in the fight that could
get bloodied, let me address this clearly for everyone: it's one thing to get a
bloody nose for a good cause, with people at home and actually in the fight
who support you, and surrounded by people where the fight is taking place
who also support you (ie, the Cooperation element) versus a bloody nose
for who knows what, with people at home who have mixed backing for both
honorable reasons and BS politics while some of the people actually in the fight
are asked to sacrifice again and again for the fight and are now weary of it,
and all the while surrounded by people where the fight is happening who
want you to leave (even though you said it was for them in the first place).

Remember that for many of us who fight, it is not prize fighting (ie, for a purse
of money), even though the managers, sponsors, and newscasters who line
the ring are making good money and members of the crowd also have some
big bets involved. The only element that may be similar is the baying for blood.
So I would agree with you that the American microwave mentality comes into
play as the sportsbar "our team/our man must win at all costs" attitude. Bear
in mind then that neither of the fighters in the ring are making any money
off the fight. Bear in mind that one fighter's nose may get bloody but he gets
a new opponent literally every round after continuous consecutive knock-outs.

So forgive me if I forget what the point was to the fight and am tired of it.
If someone wants to maintain the superior force element for the fight, then
rotate in some hot new fighter that wants to make a name for himself. But,
he too may tire of fighting for the sake of the fight rather than some larger
sense of honor that was lost in some previous fight on some other night before
he was even in the locker room.

But, more importantly, the fight is not in his hometown and he looks up
to see no familiar faces. He looks up to see no one cheering for him --in fact
just the opposite, but he was told by his manager the people in that town
were looking forward to him being there and be cheering him on. That stopped
a long time ago. In fact, some are even leaving the building and there are
fights breaking out around the concession stand!

It's not a boxing match or a football game with bloody noses and sprained ankles,
it's War and people are going to die. So even my sportsbar analogy can't really
capture what's involved for our home team when we're on an away game.

Well, gotta go --the wife and kids are calling ;)

[Gerald in Ga]

Do a search on "America under siege video" and watch some of the videos at that site. One called Iron Mountain will make you wonder what is going on around the world. And no, I am not a tin foil hat wearer. Besides, doesen't all that aluminum make it easier for the micro waves or whatever tune in like an anteannea?

[ilbob]

Do a search on "America under siege video" and watch some of the videos at that site. One called Iron Mountain will make you wonder what is going on around the world. And no, I am not a tin foil hat wearer. Besides, doesen't all that aluminum make it easier for the microw waves or whatever tune in like an anteannea?

aluminum does not work. you need real tin. :)

[Gerald in Ga]

Ok, Thanks. I didn't know

[ceetee]

So forgive me if I forget what the point was to the fight and am tired of it. If someone wants to maintain the superior force element for the fight, then rotate in some hot new fighter that wants to make a name for himself. But, he too may tire of fighting for the sake of the fight rather than some larger sense of honor that was lost in some previous fight on some other night before he was even in the locker room.

Thanks.

[Thin Black Line]

Cooperation:

February 05, 2007

Last bid to save Baghdad at the Alamo

Life ‘sucks’ in the first of the frontline ‘joint security’ camps, but they could be the US Army’s best chance to stop sectarian violence


First? Um, no.


Martin Fletcher in Baghdad

The 100 American soldiers who live here call it the Alamo, although their superiors hate the connotations of defeat. The camp is a cluster of ... heavily fortified houses on the front line of the vicious sectarian war being fought by Sunnis and Shias in ... Baghdad.

It has no water, no heating and only the most primitive latrines. One hot meal is brought in daily by lorry. Every window is sandbagged. The men sleep cheek by jowl, their nights interrupted by gunfire and explosions. A lone chandelier serves as a poignant reminder of happier times. “It sucks,” one private protested.


Sounds about the same as 2005 to me. We had National Guard in those
places back then around Baghdad....



But the “Alamo” also represents President Bush’s last best hope of restoring order to the Iraqi capital. It is the first of 20 joint security stations (JSS) that the US military intends to establish in the hotspots of Baghdad using some of the 21,000 extra troops that Mr Bush is deploying to Iraq. These garrisons are supposed to suppress the fighting, train their Iraqi Army colleagues and encourage local people to turn on Shia al-Mahdi Army militiamen and Sunni al-Qaeda types.

It is a big departure from keeping US troops cooped up in huge, isolated bases, but 48 hours in ... left The Times wondering whether — four years


No, actually it isn't.


after the fall of Saddam Hussein — it was not too little, too late. ... is barely five miles from the green zone, but it takes most of a day to get there: three hours waiting for a helicopter to the airport on the western edge of the city, three more waiting for a convoy of Humvees to take us to the JSS past Baghdad’s long-abandoned racecourse.

I used to visit Iraqi friends in ... after the US invasion of 2003. Then it was a pleasant suburb, with wide streets of palm-shaded villas. Now I found abandoned homes, shuttered shops and rubble-strewn streets barricaded against marauding gangs of killers. I drove past lakes of sewage and acres of rubbish. Local services have collapsed. There is an hour of electricity a day. Most schools are closed. One headmistress who defied the terrorists was beaten, raped, tied to a bed and electrocuted, then cut up.

The JSS is ringed by blast barriers, guard posts and coiled razor wire.
<snip>

The man in charge is Captain Erik Peterson, a 29-year-old from Indiana who is the American can-do spirit personified. “I am succeeding already,” he said. His men can now respond within minutes when fighting breaks out, he explained. They patrol daily in Humvees and on foot. They talk to Iraqis instead of kicking down their doors. They have brought in utility workers to repair power lines and arranged the first delivery in months of propane for cooking and heating.

Captain Peterson said that the sectarian posses had disappeared, their freedom of manoeuvre curtailed. He said that fewer families were being forced from their homes, fewer corpses being found and that local people were beginning to offer high-grade information about the “bad guys” in their midst. “We are fighting a counter-insurgency campaign and you need different tools from the old-style knockdown-doors campaign,” he said.

However, the violence remains pervasive. That first night we sped to the nearby ... mosque after Sunnis called to say that Shia were attacking it with rocket-propelled grenades.

The next day a mosque guard was brought to the JSS having been fatally shot by a sniper. A US patrol sent back to the mosque was fired on. That evening we rushed for our body armour after a mortar attack.

Preparing the Iraqi Army to take over may prove even harder than suppressing the violence. Captain Peterson insists that his Iraqi contingent has a “lot of potential”, but his men decry its sloppy habits, ill-discipline and trigger-happy ways.

“They are no way in hell ready to take over in Iraq,” said Private Peter Payan, 19, as he manned a watchtower. “They’re here for the paycheque,” Private Justin Kent said. “Right now we’re taking care of the problems so they don’t have anything to face. It’s just like having your Mom clean up your room for you.”


No comment necessary.


Captain Salwan al-Aden, Captain Peterson’s veteran Iraqi counterpart, admitted that Saddam’s army was more disciplined, better led and better equipped. He complained that the US military had promoted poor mid-level Iraqi officers and that the Iraqi Army lacked weapons and transport.

I witnessed no contact between the US and Iraqi soldiers below officer level, and no joint patrols.

The Iraqi Army must also win over a Sunni community that considers it to be an instrument of Shia oppression. “Sunnis absolutely hate the Iraqi Army,” Captain Peterson acknowledged. He reckoned that 90 per cent of his Iraqi contingent are Shias and admitted that it was happier pursuing al-Qaeda than the Mahdi militia.

Iraqi army patrols and checkpoints are attacked daily in Sunni-controlled .... When Captain Peterson invited Sunni leaders to meet his Iraqi officers to discuss the defence of the ... mosque, the Sunnis accused the Iraqi Army of failing to protect the mosque. The Iraqi Army accused the Sunnis of using it as a place from which to attack them. Captain Peterson said that the mere fact that Iraqi Army and Sunni leaders were talking was a “big step forward”.

Captain al-Aden refused to say how many of his men were Shia or Sunni, insisting that they were all Iraqis. “Every civilian who carries a weapon or plants a bomb is our enemy,” he said. But he nodded in agreement as Captain Dafar Khalif, a colleague, chafed at the restrictions placed on the Iraqi Army. “I think the US forces are soft,” he said. If anybody attacked the Goverment in Saddam’s day “we took him to jail and hanged him. Now we take him to jail and he’s released after seven months.”


File under "cultural differences"?


“I don’t think any of this s*** will change anything,” one US soldier said. Before leaving I watched an Iraqi Army-led “hearts and minds” exercise, a health clinic, which proved a fitting metaphor for the state of Iraq. Hundreds sought treatment. Sergeant David Tunison, a veteran US medic, said he had never seen such poor health — children with rickets, adults with tuberculosis — or sanitation. But of the six Iraqi medics supposed to attend the clinic, only two turned up.


sigh....