What should we do about Iraq?

[moa]

There is no comparison between Vietnam and Iraq. Vietnam was not fought properly as a war, a proxy war between the free world and the Communist empires. Even the legendary NVA General Giap admitted they had almost lost the war until the anti-war movement in the US came to their rescue.

Iraq is becoming a war between the free world and Islamic facists and outright thugs, and in some instances, paid criminals. I am sure there are some nationalistic Iraqis that just want the occupation to end, and are fighting for that.

Most of Iraq is quite stable. Most of the problems are in the four mostly Sunni Muslim provinces out of the total of 18 provinces.

The Iraq war appears to be sucking in all kinds of militant Muslims who want to kill Americans. Good. We do not have to look for them. They come to us and they die in droves.

Also, having a large American military presence in Iraq may be good thing over the long haul. Good staging area to take out the rest of the Middle Eastern tyrants, thugs and nut jobs. Also, to secure the oil wells.

 

[telewinz]

most of the Iraqi people either just want to live their lives, or support the coalition forces

I don't feel your TWO choices are representative however, the same claim was made for the South Vietnamese. If you will recall in a recent poll, 70% of AMERICANS feel going into Iraq was wrong. What poll information do you have about Iraqi feelings?

fear of re-living mistakes prevent us from finishing what we started

fear based on experience is what motivates people NOT to make the same mistake but your justification is an "oldie but goodie" from the Vietnam era.

as I have already stated, it's an investment in the future if we do it right.

Sounds like the domino theory another "oldie but goodie". Iraq is currently the World's largest training ground for terrorists (current CIA report), but we ARE MAKING PROGRESS (don't forget the upcoming(?) "Tet offensive") but "We are winning their hearts and minds."

We have to handle this Iraq business with as much strength and solidarity as we can muster

Lets sing while we march into battle. Besides, we all know that Iraq attacked us first (just like Germany in WW2) with their WMD's. Just because nobody found the WMD doesn't mean Iraq wasn't planning something. C'mon man, where's your logic? I'm wearing this tin foil hat for a reason.

Vietnam was not fought properly as a war

Wow, now there is one big difference because we all know that the Iraq war IS being fought properly (how many troops are going to prison for making FUN of Iraqi POW's ?) Just look at our PROGRESS.

Also, having a large American military presence in Iraq may be good thing over the long haul. Good staging area to take out the rest of the Middle Eastern tyrants, thugs and nut jobs. Also, to secure the oil wells.

I thought our clear mission was to destroy Iraq's WMD? I guess we changed to mission (just a little). Thank God we have a clear goal, other wise I'd think it was unclear (just like Vietnam's goal(s))

 

[ETCss Phil McCrackin]

If you will recall in a recent poll, 70% of AMERICANS feel going into Iraq was wrong. What poll information do you have about Iraqi feelings?

Well, I don't have any polls but I think that’s actually better, I mean, how many anti polls have we nuked repeatedly? I have the word of several Marines who have returned, that say the people as a whole support and even like the US troops, and as moa pointed out, there's only a couple of hot spots in a mostly secure country.

Sounds like the domino theory another "oldie but goodie". Iraq is currently the World's largest training ground for terrorists (current CIA report), but we ARE MAKING PROGRESS (don't forget the upcoming(?) "Tet offensive") but "We are winning their hearts and minds."

Well, if that's the case, I know a few soldiers and marines who would truly enjoy a stand up fight. But ok, I'll indulge for a moment, let's stop everyone where they are and bring them home. Let’s give in to the anti-war movement again, and stop the fighting. What if they gave a war and no one came?
1. Hindsight is 20/20, it's also pretty darn cozy. The information available at the time guided out government into this conflict with the approval of most of the government big-wigs, right or wrong.
2. We have just put an entire country into a weakened vulnerable state and to leave before we're done would be to spit in every regular Iraqi citizen’s face.
3. Terrorism is a brutal, darwinesque occupation. The dumb ones die, while the smart ones learn. Their stated goal is to kill every one of us, man, woman, and child. What does it show when every time we fight, they hit us once and we go home?

Wow, now there is one big difference because we all know that the Iraq war IS being fought properly (how many troops are going to prison for making FUN of Iraqi POW's ?) Just look at our PROGRESS.

Actually the war is being fought pretty well, considering the enemy won't even fight half the time. Every couple of days we take a few casualties, that is terrible but it is unrealistic to expect to accomplish anything in the world without the loss of something. The insurgents, on the other hand are being killed at the average rate of hundreds per day. Imagine for a second if the populace and media of today were transported back in time to 1942.....
Day one: Japan attacks us and Germany declares war on us.
Day two: Thousands of sailors and marines are killed in the pacific even though the battle was deemed a victory. The media and American populace demand the withdrawal of US forces form the Pacific Theatre of Operations.
Day three: Against popular opinion, the US Army participates in the Invasion of Normandy. Afterwards, amid thousands of floating bodies Dan Rather and a legion of Hollywood stars declare that they will not budge until we pull the forces out of France as well. After all, neither Japan nor Germany wants to invade the US do they?
Day four: Oh wait, Hitler did have plans to invade the US after a lengthy bombing campaign with flying wing type bombers and their new atomic bombs.....
"All that's necessary for evil men to win is for good men to do nothing."

 

[Delmar]

I just love the comparisons between Viet Nam and Iraq. Sounds like somebody is reading Teddy Kennedy's playbook.

RVN had a very corrupt government in place when we landed, and never did represent the people. Iraq has no government at this time, but there are those who were against this from the start and refuse to believe that anything good could ever come out of it. Think as you will.

I don't put much stock in what the politicians say or the polls-what I do listen to are the people who are there/have been there, and what I hear is not political statements, but a genuine desire to see the job through. Even though they know its their neck-rather than the crap house politicians who pooh-pooh anything not to their point of view, who have never been there or Viet Nam (such as Teddy the Swimmer). I prefer to go to the well, rather than the water wishers.

 

[telewinz]

Well I wasn't anti-war during the 60's or 70's and I'm not about to start now. This will be my last "published" word on the matter. How we got into Iraq has nothing to do with the wisdom of why we should remain. The popularity of the war with some Marines doesn't impact that wisdom either. I don't think "hindsight" is the issue, only our results and progress. I have come to the opinion that it's an almost hopeless situation, you just require more time. I really hope you are right and that I am wrong. I just hope it doesn't take 10 years and 50,000+ KIA's to discover who is showing better wisdom.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I believe that there is a mental disorder running rampant in this country where people can't see situations as they exist but rather they only see one ideological side or the other. Of course there are differences between Iraq and Vietnam, but to say there are no similarities is about as simple-minded as saying creationism should be taught in schools, in spite of all the fossilized evidence to the contrary. Both are wars of choice rather than necessity, both are fought on non-traditional battlefields against a covert army, and both were entered into on false pretext. Both wars will ultimately destroy the reputations of once proud men who served as secretaries of defense and oversaw their respective wars. Rumsfeld is the McNamara of the 21st century and history will judge him equally harshly.

There are also some very important differences. In spite of his self-admitted and well-demonstrated ignorance about the Vietnam war, Ryan-in-the-house brings up an interesting point when he writes: "We failed to overthrow a government in Vietnam, and we succeeded in overthrowing a government in Iraq." In his ignorance he inadvertently points out a key difference between Iraq and Vietnam. In Vietnam we weren't trying to overthrow a government but rather prop up an illegitimate one. The former is much easier to accomplish than the latter.

Another difference is that the average Vietnamese citizen wasn't worried about communism, while the average Iraqi was concerned about Hussein. In spite of the unimaginable bungling, incompetence, and hubris on the part of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and crew, when all is said and done many, if not most, Iraqis shared their goal of removing Saddam. The Vietnamese just wanted to be left alone.

Still another major difference is that without Western intervention, there would have been no civil war in Vietnam. In Iraq local forces are working to incite civil war, a situation that would prove intolerable for all but the most extreme elements of Iraqi society.

Perhaps the most striking difference is that the current war is taking place in a religious context, with a large contingent of the participating forces interested in creating a self-serving religious theocracy in the country. Religion played little part in the Vietnamese war.

In some ways the differences make the war in Iraq both more difficult and at the same time give it greater potential for a successful conclusion. This is not likely, but possible. In Vietnam it was impossible.

 

[Delmar]

"The popularity of the war with some Marines doesn't impact that wisdom either."

War is not "popular" with the people who have to fight it-ask around.....
Whether or not this war is successful in its goals remains to be seen. Hindsight is revealing if viewed accurately.

We as a government encouraged the Kurds to stand up and fight Saddam and we turned our backs on them. Little wonder its a bit tough to get people there to trust us, but its starting to happen.

We also supplied weapons to the resistance fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets, and walked away when that was over-one bully replaced by another.

In Viet Nam, we fought their war for them for a long while, and trained them to take over-what was known as Vietnamization. Then, when we get them decently equipped to fight the war the way we do, with plenty of weapons and ammo, and sell them down the river with the ceasefire agreement, leaving the enemy in their rear. Congress pulls the plug so no more supplies or air cover. Gee, how did that fail

Still burns my assets when people say "we lost". We "lost" nothing-when the last of the ground combat units came home in 1973, the RVN was still an entity. What was lost was congress, in their never ending slimy way, decided to "cut their losses". What they did was lay a pile of dung at the feet or headstone of every one who served.

 

[Ryan in the House]

I don't feel your TWO choices are representative however, the same claim was made for the South Vietnamese. If you will recall in a recent poll, 70% of AMERICANS feel going into Iraq was wrong. What poll information do you have about Iraqi feelings?

Could you be more specific? I searched online for this "70% of Americans do not agree with Iraqi invasion" poll, but could come up with nothing!

What poll do I have about Iraqi feelings? Well, we polled the Iraqis already.

"While Iraqis are unhappy about the current situation in their country, almost two-thirds in the poll said they expect their country will be better off five years from now than it was before the U.S. and British invasion.

Six in 10 say ousting Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships they have faced since then.

Half said they are better off since Saddam was ousted, while 25 percent said they are doing about the same."

 

[Ivy Mike]

I think we should add one more choice to the ballot in Iraq.

A. USA stays longer to help rebuild.
B. USA leaves within 60 days...regardless of any circumstances.

Let the people decide.
This is what freedom is all about. The ability to make your country in the manner you see fit. I may not like the choices they make, but I will fight to the death for their right to do it.

 

[telewinz]

Let the people decide.

Why not? While they hold elections for a new Iraq goverment we should also let the IRAQ people decide if the U.S. should stay, just like we here in the U.S. decide a new tax issue. The results would be binding, I could live with that. Are we afraid of what the ballot results would say? We cetainly didn't like the results of the elections in Vietnam so due to our noble "cause" we chose to ignore the voice of the people. "If you can't impress them with your brillance, then baffle them with your BS."

 

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

Let the Iraqis decide!

Now that is a fundamentally great and good idea.

Bboards are like the primordial ooze. There's a lot of muck around, but every so often something really worthwhile evolves.


It'll never happen. :banghead:

- pdmoderator

 

[telewinz]

War is not "popular" with the people who have to fight it-ask around

Where have YOU been. During Vietnam I met a great many GI's (& a couple of marines) who enjoyed the heck out of the war. I enlisted (325 draft number) and stayed in over 6 years with NO regrets but regardless of my experience (or others) Vietnam was a boondoggle and I was saddened to realize this only AFTER I did my own research. I've also recently met with two GI's (much younger personal friends) who experienced a fairly enjoyable time in Iraq but just didn't care too much for the U.S. Army. I still blame that no good S.O.B. McNamara for Vietnam, he knew we couldn't win (read his book) but continued to "baffle people with his BS" for the "cause".

 

[Freedomv]

Maybe we should make them the 51st State.
Vern

 

[308win]

Maybe we should make them the 51st State.

Maybe we should give them Massachusetts.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Let the Iraqis decide!

Thats the worst idea I have ever heard. I don't think our enemies, or even our friends, need to tell us when and how the US military needs to be used.

Any commander in chief who would take a poll of the Iraqis and use it to decide how to utilize the US military should be impeached. It would be blatant dereliction of duty.

If the Iraqis want a country, they need to stand up and fight for it, not make Americans do the work for them.

We have accomplished the goals we had set when we went into Iraq. We have toppled Saddam and have him in custody. We have prevented them from using their massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (well, that part was easy since they didnt have any). Now its time to get out.

Iraq is not going to be a stable democracy when we leave, and you are smoking too much crack if you believe otherwise. At best it will be a semi-stable pro-American dictatorship disguised as a democracy, and it will only survive as long as we decide to prop it up.

Pull out and let the Sunnis and the Shias fight it out in civil war. Everytime one of them kills a member of the opposite side, we can count it as a victory.

 

[308win]

If the Iraqis want a country, they need to stand up and fight for it, not make Americans do the work for them.

There it is, I'll vote for that!

 

[outofbattery]

I really don't want to become an Iraqi but I don't think they'd like it much anyway : too cold , too wet and with no oil and far too few guns . We're more like France , Texas would be more Iraq's speed .

Maybe we should give them Massachusetts.

 

[308win]

Texas would be more Iraq's speed

There it is, I'll vote for that too if they will take the Shrub in the deal.

 

[Zundfolge]

The biggest reason we did not "win" in Viet Nam is that the politicans decided on both strategic and tactical military actions.

We were actually winning the war in Vietnam before the liberals who run our media decided we should lose.

The infamous "Tet Offensive" was a tactical defeat for the North Vietnamese, but the Jane Fonda worshiping lefties spun it to turn public opinion against the war.


This is exactly what they are doing in Iraq ... whether you agree with our reasons for going in there, we won fast, we are continuing to win and with very little casualties (we lost many more men in Vietnam then we have or will in Iraq)

To see how the left spun our defeat in Vietnam, read this http://www.rjsmith.com/war_myth.html

 

[JHill]

Now, come on guys, everybody knows that if we leave Iraq now that would undermine our (gubment's) progress (take-over) of relations(oil fields) w/ the middle east.

 

[Fletchette]

One proposal I heard that makes a lot of sense is to break Iraq up into thre countries, one Sunni, one Kurdish and one Shiite.

An alternate is to keep a Federal Iraq and have three states that have the option to suceed in a couple of years.

As far as military tactics, I think that Iraq is topographically different than Vietnam and we should take advantage of it. Pull all our troops out of the cities and have them set up camp way out in the desert. They would be out of range of all the weapons the insurgents have, and if any came out to attack we would easily see them as there is little cover. These camps would be terrorist magnets that would draw terrorists from all over the world to be pop-up targets.

We would maintain a presense, provide civil material for Iraqis to fix their cities, and kill anybody that attacks us. After the Iraqis sort out what they want/who is their leader, we leave. Even if their government isn't a Democracy.

 

[outofbattery]

Iraq is more than just about oil and it is more than just about the War on Terror and it is more than just building Democracy in the Mid East - it is all of these things and them some . Leaving would be a horrific mistake , in all likelyhood it would be the worst foreign policy mistake the US has ever made : it would show the United States as weak , unable to accept losses and would give the US no credibility whatsoever ever again in the region . For the alledged isolationists here , I propose that your view of the world is incredibly short sighted and unrealistic .


The camps in the desert strategy means that the US would cede contol of every population center just as happened in Fallujah and An Najaf . If the insurgents contol the population , what would the point of being there be ? The US is still attempting to take a soft approach with the Sunnis to intice them into playing nice , but they're having none of it . The problem with partitioning Iraq is that the international community will not allow it . The Turks , Syrians and Iranians will not stand for a Kurdish state and an entirely Shiia state would be far too easy to become a sattellite of Iran . Splitting the country in 3 is probably the biggest fear the Sunnis have and should be the sword held above their heads : they would have no oil and no self controlled way to trade , they are aware that if it happens , they have nothing but they also still think they can return to the days of Saddam and inforce minority rule .

The comparisons to Vietnam are bunk . The insurgents do not have the backing of the Soviet Union and China nor do they have anything near the support that the Viet Cong did . Iraq has a population of 50 million , if there are 50,000 supporters that is enough for an effective insurgency as shown but it can not last if the majority decide that it has gone on long enough . The Iraqis are losing 10 X the number of people daily , it is in their best interests to control their best interests but not having had any history of doing such , they need to learn how to do so - and fast .

 

[Kruzr]

Since we are building 14 "enduring" bases (as the Pentagon calls them) in Iraq, it appears as if we will be there a while.

 

[Ryan in the House]

Telewinz, I am waiting for your answer... where do you get those poll figures? Refer to my post above.

There are also some very important differences. In spite of his self-admitted and well-demonstrated ignorance about the Vietnam war, Ryan-in-the-house brings up an interesting point when he writes: "We failed to overthrow a government in Vietnam, and we succeeded in overthrowing a government in Iraq." In his ignorance he inadvertently points out a key difference between Iraq and Vietnam. In Vietnam we weren't trying to overthrow a government but rather prop up an illegitimate one. The former is much easier to accomplish than the latter.

Like I said, I am not experienced (call it ignorance if you like that word better) in the fields of Vietnam, but all this time I had thought the strategy was to stamp out the Communist control of Vietnam; is this not correct? That would fall under the "overthrow a government" category I think.

 

[klover]

Billions have been spent on this war (the oil is at least in the back of many people's minds).
A few millions spent on new energy sources this year.

Look at the stars. There are many highly energetic UNKNOWN processes going on. The billions spent in energy research could make all conventional sources obsolete.

Unlimited energy could be used to better mankind in translations of making fresh water out of sea water, powering cars, etc. for the entire world.

But alas, unlimited energy would first be used to make weaponry.

I believe in weaponry for self defense, and food gathering. Self defense was the claim in WMD's. The news is now there were no WMD's.

I would defend my home soil to the death. Perhaps some in Iraq view US as the aggressor in a struggle to the death.

The camel jockies can have their problems without US trying to "fix" their problems for them. If you have a tyrantical government, it's up to you to overthrow it without US butting our nose into other peoples business.