What should we do about Iraq?

[ETCss Phil McCrackin]

Ya know, it took longer that I thought for a mod to step out of the shadows with the cautions. I gotta give cedit to the folks on this board for pretty much keeping this conversation civil. Something like this out in the world frequently ends up as a shouting match even among like minded people. Then when you add a person like telewinz who plays the role of Cassandra, and the sparks fly!

I have no choice but to trust his instinct and training, along with a few words of advice

One of the guidelines from the CG for the Marines out of Pendleton was, "Think of EVERY Iraqi as though they want to kill you, but do NOT treat them that way!" Most every front line trigger-puller knows that the enemy is not invincible, in fact they are usually very poor shots that go down quickly with a little well placed outgoing!
The sooner we can replace the troops with a small special forces presence the better!

 

[telewinz]

I ain't no female, maybe Cassanova?

Cassandra's "gift" is evident in mythology. She predicted the outcome of many disastrous events. In one memorable example, Cassandra announced the dire consequences of the Trojans accepting the infamous Wooden Horse from their Greek opponents. But as Apollo made certain, no one believed Cassandra when she warned her companions about the future. And this, in the end, was to be Cassandra's tragic fate.

 

[Firethorn]

So say we pulled out of Iraq tommorrow, whats the worse that would happen? Violence in the streets? Bombings? The murders of innocent civilians? The disruption of the oil flow? The desertion of the Iraqi military? The decline of law and order? Iran might develope nuclear weapons?

One Word: Afghanistan
Another: 9/11

We have to stay at least until a functioning government is re-established. Otherwise they'll descend into another Afghanistan with local warlords.

Telewinz, please stop with the Vietnam comparisons. If we hadn't been constrained by the politicians, we could of at the very least forced a north/south Korea type situation. We could of won it. If we had been allowed to do what it took. The lesson I took from studying Vietnam was: Don't let the politicians dictate the waging of War. They should make the decision to go to war, but it should be a 'let slip the dogs of war' type affair. The dogs are more effective unleashed. You keep hold of the leash, and the war is going to be longer and more expensive on both sides.

Imagine how Iraq would have worked out if Bush and Congress decided that we'll take Baghdad last, secure the perimeter. That we won't bomb Baghdad. That it required permission from the president to bomb a SAM site.

Besides, we suffered more casualties during the occupation of Germany after WWII than what we're suffering in Iraq.

I agree with the sentiment: Let the Iraqies vote on whether we stay or not. It's not handing our military affairs to them. They have sovernty, so it's not them giving orders to our military, it's them asking us to stay, or asking us to leave their country. We can pull out unilaterally any time, but we're willing to stay. If they don't want us there, it's only polite that we leave. If we don't, it just makes a joke of sovernty.

Have you noticed that they've shifted away from attacking Americans to attacking representatives of the new Iraq government? I know they're still attacking Americans, but it seems that they're putting more effort into attacking the new police and military forces.

Personally, I'd try to set up a number of cameras along some of the worse roads and try to catch them on camera.

And I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that Vietnam, Bosnia, Somalia, have given the impression that the USA is a paper tiger. We have to disabuse them of this notion. We have to stay the course. We have to crush them so badly that no body else wants to try.

 

[telewinz]

If we hadn't been constrained by the politicians, we could of at the very least forced a north/south Korea type situation. We could of won it.

The military is suppose to be "constrained" by the politicians, which American war wasn't? If they were not we would have "nuked" Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam. A mushroom cloud should/will not save a failed administrative policy and a mis-used military. The military is paying for Bush's failure, is that fair? Is it wise? Yet you insist on making the military continue to pay an even higher price. I'm not sure what thats called but it's not wisdom or patriotism.

 

[macavada]

Telewinz, please stop with the Vietnam comparisons. If we hadn't been constrained by the politicians, we could of at the very least forced a north/south Korea type situation. We could of won it. If we had been allowed to do what it took. The lesson I took from studying Vietnam was: Don't let the politicians dictate the waging of War. They should make the decision to go to war, but it should be a 'let slip the dogs of war' type affair. The dogs are more effective unleashed. You keep hold of the leash, and the war is going to be longer and more expensive on both sides.

I don't mean to be a smart alec, but you said this war is nothing like Vietnam, and made the argument why it is, in the same paragraph.

Who's running the Pentagon? The military, or its civilian boses? Are we really releasing the dogs in all their wrath, or are we playing a tight balancing act by trying to preserve the infrastructure and minimize civilian deaths because we want to be left with a democratic government that sympathizes with us? Aren't we in fact keeping "hold of the leash" when our civilian boses, instead of listening to the military experts, come up with a plan that forces the military to accept Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's ideas?

I don't think this war is "Vietnam all over again", but the comparisons aren't far fetched.

Don't just say it isn't so, argue why it isn't so.

 

[telewinz]

No one should find pleasure in the quagmire Iraq has become. Comparing it to the situation in Vietnam is not an argument for bringing our troops home immediately or for denying the value of establishing democracy in Iraq. Rather, the similarities between our failure in Vietnam and the increasing dangers in Iraq should prompt the Bush administration to rethink its policy assumptions.

We have a chance to re-write history by the wisdom we use in our Iraq policy. I don't see that we are up to the task, I don't see that their is even the desire. Killing and destroying is such an easier "solution". And if it doesn't work, well we were "helpless" due to conditions beyond our control. It's "I'm a victim excuse". "If I had only known". A great many on this thread have no desire to know/debate, they want to keep it simple, like on an 8th grade level. No headaches please. I know a very good/important reason why we should stay in Iraq. It's not pleasant because it's loaded with reality and yet it's only been touched upon by a few.

 

[Delmar]

Killing and destroying is such an easier "solution".

Thats not a very nice, nor truthful assessment of our troops in the field, Telewinz.

 

[telewinz]

Why we have to stay the course in IRAQ!

It's always been about OIL! There is nonething to be ashamed of, our very way of life since before any of us were born depends on OIL. If someone cut off your water or electricity you would fight with no remorse to take it back but as soon as someone mentions OIL, Americans develope a guilt complex and fear GOD will send them to HELL! Now before you bust into tears or ask GOD for foregiveness. These are long standing facts that every politician in Washington KNOWS, yet knows the American public can't handle so they avoid the subject. There is a vast amount of reliable information available, I'll try to keep it short. READ:as if your way of life depended upon it!

America's dependence on imported petroleum has been growing steadily since 1972, when domestic output reached its maximum (or "peak") output of 11.6 million barrels per day (mbd). Domestic production is now running at about 9 mbd and is expected to continue to decline as older fields are depleted. (Even if some oil is eventually extracted from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, as the Bush administration desires, this downward trend will not be reversed.) Yet our total oil consumption remains on an upward course; now approximating 20 mbd, it's projected to reach 29 mbd by 2025. This means ever more of the nation's total petroleum supply will have to be imported -- 11 mbd today (about 55% of total U.S. consumption) but 20 mbd in 2025 (69% of consumption).

The US is the world’s largest oil consumer, burning about 19.8 millions barrels of oil per day. The US consumes more oil than the next 5 largest consumers combined. The major oil consuming nations (millions of barrels per day MMBD) include: United States [9.8], China [5.2], Japan [5.3], Germany [2.7], Russia [2.6], India [2.2], and South Korea [2.2].

The countries with the largest oil reserves (in millions of barrels) include: Saudi Arabia [261,750],Iraq [112,500], United Arab Emirates [97.800], Kuwait [96,500], Iran [89,700], Venezuela [77,685], and Russia [48,573]. These are some of the most turbulent countries in the world, fraught with internal problems.

As America’s oil runs out, it will be forced to comply with the “free market forces†it has long promoted. This means paying the market price for oil and competing for limited supplies against China, Japan, India and Korea, four of the world’s fastest growing economies. In mid-2004, oil prices have reached historic highs.

Unfortunately, the longer we delay, the more the U.S. may be drawn into foreign expeditions that over-reach our military and economic capabilities and political resolve. There are reasons that America is focusing attention on the Middle East and South Central Asia – this is where the oil lies. And this is where we can expect to witness political conflict and war in the early 21st Century.

The American military presence in oil-producing areas of Africa, though less conspicuous, is growing rapidly. The Department of Defense has stepped up its arms deliveries to military forces in Angola and Nigeria, and is helping to train their officers and enlisted personnel; meanwhile, Pentagon officials have begun to look for permanent U.S. bases in the area, focusing on Senegal, Ghana, Mali, Uganda, and Kenya. Although these officials tend to talk only about terrorism when explaining the need for such facilities, one officer told Greg Jaffe of the Wall Street Journal in June 2003 that "a key mission for U.S. forces [in Africa] would be to ensure that Nigeria's oil fields, which in the future could account for as much as 25 percent of all U.S. oil imports, are secure."

U.S. Army Special Forces personnel from Fort Bragg, North Carolina are now helping to train, equip, and guide a new contingent of Colombian forces whose sole mission will be to guard the pipeline and fight the guerrillas along its 480-mile route

But Iraq is hardly the only country where American troops are risking their lives on a daily basis to protect the flow of petroleum. In Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and the Republic of Georgia, U.S. personnel are also spending their days and nights protecting pipelines and refineries, or supervising the local forces assigned to this mission.

U.S. personnel are also spending their days and nights protecting pipelines and refineries, or supervising the local forces assigned to this mission. American sailors are now on oil-protection patrol in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the South China Sea, and along other sea routes that deliver oil to the United States and its allies. In fact, the American military is increasingly being converted into a global oil-protection service.

This, then, is the future of U.S. military involvement abroad. While anti-terrorism and traditional national security rhetoric will be employed to explain risky deployments abroad, a growing number of American soldiers and sailors will be committed to the protection of overseas oil fields, pipeline, refineries, and tanker routes. And because these facilities are likely to come under increasing attack from guerrillas and terrorists, the risk to American lives will grow accordingly. Inevitably, we will pay a higher price in blood for every additional gallon of oil we obtain from abroad.

We had all better pray that Bush makes the right choices AND stays the course. Using a horse and buggy is no longer an option! Our enemies know our weakness! Don't fight for Iraq's freedom...fight to maintain your own way of life, just like your father/grandfather did during WWII! Your way of life is a right to fight for just like the 2nd amendment.

Killing and destroying is such an easier "solution"

I was referring to the mindset of some VOTERS. I have most likely been pro-military (especially ARMY) since before you were born.

 

[telewinz]

I know, ain't I one S.O.B.?

 

[Firethorn]

Telewinz,

I did compare Iraq to Vietnam, I will admit. I stated differences, how Iraq would have been done if we handled it like Vietnam. A better comparison would be the occupation of Germany after WWII. I simply stated that my lesson learned for vietnam is that unless you're willing to do what it takes to win, you shouldn't go in. The politician sets the goals, the military people tell you the expected costs, and sets the strategy. As for us showing restraint, well, to a large extent that's the military itself practicing restraint.

We're occupying the country. We aren't supposed to kill civilians. Whenever we get a target, we take care of it. The problem is that we don't have the targets. Also, the news doesn't cover all the good we're doing, the successes we've had. The politicians have exercised an amazing amount of restraint in keeping from messing with the military.

And btw, I'm military. I'm looking to deploy to the area coming up. I was over there during the active phase. It was suspensful waiting for it to happen. We knew it was coming, but didn't know when.

Do I want to stay over there for forever? No. But we have to stabilize the region first. Personally, I think that they're making a large effort right now before the elections. I think that violence will start dropping after that point. I hope that the new regime there puts a foot thoroughly on the violence.

 

[telewinz]

Thank You for your service to our country. BTW, we MUST do what ever it takes to maintain our way of life. Yours is no easy duty.

 

[RangerHAAF]

When the election is done and a solid, stable government is in place the coalition should withdraw. The Kurds should have their own country along the coast, not in or near the oilfields.

Within a year, I would predict a very bad civil war along the lines of ferocity like Beirut. After which someone like Saddam will emerge to become their king, emir or shah. The attempt at democracy will not last long beyond the presence of the US.

They have been ruled by kings for thousands of years. They expect harsh and brutal treatment. They don't like complicated rules of law(I can't blame them on that score); their allegiance belongs to the group that they are a part of(Sunni or Shia), not a democratically elected government and unfortunately any government elected will be seen a tool of the US, so there is no good or easy way out.

The question that the Bush administration has to ask is how much of a price in lives and money is enough? Because "democracy" isn't going down well with the "followers of Muhammad". Even in the "friendly" countries of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar there is no democracy and we shouldn't delude ourselves that there is.

 

[fallingblock]

It isn't 'like' Vietnam, then?

"It's always been about OIL!"
*********************************************************

Not that I'd agree completely with this assessment-

but what resource was the U.S. after in Vietnam?

RangerHAAF:
*********************************************************
"They have been ruled by kings for thousands of years. They expect harsh and brutal treatment."
*********************************************************

Unfounded and unjust stereotypes of entire segments of humanity have historically proved to be a very unreliable factor upon which to base policy.

Turkey has been a fairly stable secular democracy yet firmly Muslim for 80 years now. The Turks certainly knew (and perpetrated) centuries of abuse under the Ottoman Empire yet the majority embraced Mustafa Khemal (Ataturk) and his secular government when the opportunity arose for them to do so.

Likewise, the subcontinent of India would have seemed a most unlikely place for democracy in the time of the Raj. Your stereotype could have been applied to the huge underclasses of hindus and likely was by many of the colonial Brits.

Like 'killing and destroying', stereotyping entire ethnic groups is too easy and far too dangerous to rely upon as a basis for policy.

Education and example are very useful to bringing democracy to those unable to win it for themselves. Japan, Germany and Italy following WWII made fine democracies once the dictators were ousted.

Representative democracy was a new concept to the Japanese, and unattainable to the Germans and Italians until the dictators were removed by outside intervention.

 

[telewinz]

but what resource was the U.S. after in Vietnam?

Vietnam was pretty much a "political" cause but remember Vietnam and our "experience" started back in the '50's when our domestic oil consumption was much less than now, our own supply was adequate, there was less demand for oil in the World, and the 3rd world countries were a little more stable. "all about oil" refers to the past 30 years or so. BTW...within 2 years after the fall of Vietnam, oil reserves were discovered off-shore of Vietnam. "all about oil" really isn't an opinion, it's fact based and the situation we are in/entering is well documented. Do the research, lets see if your point of view can be documented/justified. Just consider that we are living in an arid environment and our water source is/has turned from a river to a stream while the number of thirsty people continues to increase. This Oil issue is way too important (it's now a global political "tool") for many Americans to ignore it or pretend the problem will be solved "somehow, someway, sometime in the future." Handled incorrectly, it could easily cause the decline of America within your lifetime (50 years) but hopefully not mine.

 

[RangerHAAF]

There is a big cultural difference between Japan, Germany and Italy versus the middle-eastern mindset of today. Democracy took hold in those countries because the people, per se, of those countries wanted to rebuild their respective homelands and be protected from Soviet expansion into their territories. In short, they chose to accept democracy for their own mutual protection, which was aided greatly by the US; and because of the amount of time involved(about 2 generations) the "seeds" of democracy had time to germinate and grow.

Such is not the case in the middle east today. They have never operated under a representative democracy concept in any of their countries. Even our "ally" Egypt has a king by any other name, Hosni Mubarak who has been in charge of that country ever since Anwar Sadat was assassinated. He will be in charge until the day he dies and authority is given to his son. The people of Egypt are happy with the situation and who are we to suggest otherwise.

Now when you add the religious zeal of Islam to an authoritarian national mindset and try to change their basic institutions of governance overnight; what do you think the reaction is going to be?! What we see daily on TV.

 

[Bainx]

A free and prosperous Iraq will do more to promote peace in the region than any amount of aid and diplomacy

They do not want our version of "freedom".
They are herdsmen and tribal people who have lived the same way for 2,000 years.
They will revert to what they were shortly after we leave.
It does not matter what we leave them with, they will revert just like North Korea and Vietnam.

Get our people out

 

[Art Eatman]

Sorry, telewinz, but l'affaire Vietnam was solely a Cold War political deal. It primarily stemmed from the view of John Foster Dulles about a monolithic world Communism. He didn't differentiate between the USSR, China, or any other group of Communists as to their desires or national interests. Dulles' ideas drove US policy beyond his tenure as SecState under Eisenhower.

An excellent "short course" background on Vietnam can be found in the Appendices of Lederer & Burdick's book, "And He Are Us"* (from the Walt Kelly/Pogo line, natch). (L&B wrote "The Ugly Americn" wherein the protagonist was the opposite of what that term came to mean.)

Art

* Admitting to a possibly (probably?) faulty memory after some 50 years, it's possible they used the first part of the Pogo line. "We have met the enemy". I disremember, perzackly. )

 

[fallingblock]

Vietnam and Iraq are night and day different....

I'm agreeing with telewinz that the Vietnam thing was a mistake for the U.S..

My disagreement comes from the fact that Iraq has so little in common either historically or geopolitically with the Vietnam situation.

Next to nothing.


*********************************************************
"Do the research, lets see if your point of view can be documented/justified."
*********************************************************

I'm happy to go with what I've written above, having done the research (some of it up close and personal ) from nearly forty years ago up to the present.


*********************************************************
""all about oil" really isn't an opinion, it's fact based and the situation we are in/entering is well documented"
*********************************************************

Nope, it's still an opinion, and rather too popular for the facts to justify.
Oil is a 'hot' resource for sure, but even if the Iraq action was primarily about oil (which I believe is NOT the case), that would only add to the case against any similarity between Vietnam and Iraq.


*********************************************************
"Handled incorrectly, it could easily cause the decline of America within your lifetime (50 years) but hopefully not mine."
*********************************************************

Jee-pers, telewinz,
if'n I live to be 106 I'll be worried about remembering how to chew my solar-cooked rest-home food, not fossil fuels.


RangerHAAF:
*********************************************************
"what do you think the reaction is going to be?! What we see daily on TV."
*********************************************************

And what of that which you do NOT see on T.V.?

The 14 of 18 provinces of Iraq where stability is the norm?

The news media have a vested interest, both political and proprietary, in showing dischord and disaster, the left in particular wants Iraq to disintegrate and U.S. policy to be discredited. Blood sells.

People are people-
Give them the experience and education of freedom and they will choose it.

No doubt there are variations of liberty which a serf would find uncomfortable and even bewildering, but if the choice is genuinely available, it's a given.

 

[Ralphpeters]

The 14 of 18 provinces of Iraq where stability is the norm?

Im doing some research and it appears your right about the 4 provinces.
Basically though anywhere there is a population with american troops there is death of american soldiers. Here is a break down of casualties. And location.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_dec04.htm

Here is a map. Unfortunately it is late. I cannot find a provincial map of Iraq. I would like to see one though. A day without learning something is a wasted day
http://geography.about.com/library/cia/blciraq.htm

 

[Art Eatman]

Taking the risk of making this thread longer: This is the first experience with warfare where the opponents are motivated by religious reasons far more than by purely political reasons (although the two are tied together in the Moslem world). IMO, this is what has made possible the various miscalculations as to the extent of the resistance we're facing. $0.02...

I think people tend to focus too narrowly on Iraq itself and Iraq's oil. To me, it's a geopolitical chess game with a much larger arena. I think it's about the ability to project power so that some semblance of order can be maintained in the entire middle east. That is, oil can be produced for ALL users, not just the U.S. Our economy depends on trade with other oil-importing countries, so it's in our national interest that their economies remain healthy. A friendly Iraq with some major bases in the more western areas (somewhere; I dunno perzackly) would allow removal of USN ships from the Persian Gulf, as well as removal of troops from other Persian Gulf states--lessening religious tensions.

Long term stuff; big arena; one step at a time...

Art

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Good points about the nature of the Iraq war, Art. I thought about this a lot in 2002, after it became apparent that the Bush administration was going to war regardless of whether or not Saddam allowed full inspection of his weapons stockpile. When trying to decide whether going to war was the right or wrong thing, I kept coming to the conclusion that you can't win a war against a religion, which is how many Muslims around the world would see this, and you can't win an occupation, at least not in the traditional sense of "win."

But we went to war (I guess I should have sent the president an email or something), and while I didn't support us going in there the way we did, now that we are there I believe we have no option but to see this thing through to the best possible conclusion. And while I still believe this is not something we can win in the traditional sense, some conclusions are clearly better than others. About all we can do now is try our best to ensure the elections go as well as possible.

 

[agricola]

Recognize who in that whole mess are our friends. Support the Kurds, ignore the rest.

 

[Ralphpeters]

I think people tend to focus too narrowly on Iraq itself and Iraq's oil. To me, it's a geopolitical chess game with a much larger arena. I think it's about the ability to project power so that some semblance of order can be maintained in the entire middle east. That is, oil can be produced for ALL users, not just the U.S. Our economy depends on trade with other oil-importing countries, so it's in our national interest that their economies remain healthy. A friendly Iraq with some major bases in the more western areas

It is about projecting power in the middle east and controlling the source of oil. We have built 14 permanent bases in Iraq to project that power. And your right. The Oil companys that drill the Oil will sell to any country not just the US. The semblace of order, doesnt mean peace it means US control. That puts us in the position of being Imperial. If you want peace in the region the way to fo done it was cut aid and threaten the Israelis with stopping support unless they get back to the table and resolve the palestinian issue.

This is a replay of what we did in Iran in the '50s. Iran wanted to privatise there Oil industry. The british asked for our help, the british economy would of been in big trouble if their oil industry in Iran was privatise. Through some shrewd political coups we ended up with the Shah.

I know some people will think it is a conspiracy, but the call for the Iraq war is clearly spelled out in the PNAC web site.
No matter how you look at it. It strill is the wrong reason for going to war. It is one of the most unamerican things you can think of IMHO. And now GWB is claiming he wants to do some more freedom fighting. Thats bad.

 

[Art Eatman]

What's generally omitted in commentaries about the CIA, Mossadegh and the Shah is any awareness of Mossadegh's cozying up to the USSR. The USSR was actively seeking access to a warm water port for the expansion of their naval capabilities, and part of the Truman/Eisenhower/JFK/LBJ "containment" Cold War policy was the idea that this could not be allowed.

The Shah's problems stemmed primarily from a willingness to allow secularization in the Irani society, plus allow women to be educated and drive cars. This reduced the political power of the mullahs, whence came the primary opposition to the Shah. The Shah's SAVAK was no more cruel than was typical of most middle-east countries, but it was demonized in the popular press. And as we all know, things surely didn't improve following the Shah's rule...

Art

 

[Bullet]

I thought we are in the Mideast because of terrorists attacking us in the USA. The terrorists aren’t from one country and seem to be some kind of religious nuts. I blame all the countries that promote and allow these kind of one-sided extremist religious views to exist to be the problem. I believe all the comparisons to wars we lost are not what we should be talking about. We should be comparing this to wars we won. Take WWII for example. How do you think we’d have done if we said (we like the German people we just don’t like Hitler). I believe our failures have been caused by not really going to war but rather trying to police other countries. I believe the whole Mideast is a mess and until we address this we will always have problems. We need to declare war on the whole bunch and really go to war. That’s what we did in WWII and we won. After you kill enough of the enemy the ones that are left will be more willing to get with the program just like they did after WWII. If the countries in the Mideast are really a threat to us we need to declare war and attack them but I’m not sure we have the guts to do what needs to be done. To bad our country appears to have become afraid to win.