What to do in Iraq?

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by ski360

I really don't want to get into this discussion mainly because Dr325i is always right and is mainly a dick but this is a email I got from a friend in Iraq. Read it and enjoy it. You might learn more here then you will all year.

From a medic in Iraq:

Following the article I sent about Bush's national address and troop increase, I thought it was a good idea to let you all know what the perspective is over here. I'm tired of hearing the media's skewed version, the politicians squabbling over what they read in a report, and the average ill-informed American ranting about things he knows NOTHING about.(Dr325i, I think he's talking about YOU) I've been over here a couple of months now, and I've learned more about this country than a year's worth of watching CNN. I've sat in mission briefs with Colonels, talked with village elders, had tea with Sheiks, played with the kids. And I agree with the President. We need more troops and we need to take greater action.
There are 3 major factions here. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The Shiites are in the majority, but Saddam was a Sunni, so he kept the Shiites in check. Everyone hates the Kurds, who are Christian and in the vast minority. ...

The young specialist is incorrect in saying the Kurds are Christian, the vast majority are Sunni Muslim. They also make up around 20% of Iraq's total population, hardly a vast minority.

i would also quibble with the impression he gives of the role of the Sunni vs Shi'ite Arabs in the current violence but he is probably in a Sunni area and what he hears is the Sunni perspective.

[ski360]

Originally Posted by ganeil

The young specialist is incorrect in saying the Kurds are Christian, the vast majority are Sunni Muslim. They also make up around 20% of Iraq's total population, hardly a vast minority.

I would also quibble with the impression he gives of the role of the Sunni vs Shi'ite Arabs in the current violence but he is probably in a Sunni area and what he hears is the Sunni perspective.

I'll agree with your statement, your right it is about 15 to 20% Kurd, but when you consider the rest of the population is Arab which is 75-80%. He broke it down wrong. So that would qualify them as the vast minority And he is in a Sunni area somedays and Shi'a in others

[ski360]

Originally Posted by dr325i

ski360, get off my back you f'n idiot. As you can see there are normal people here that do not share my opinion, but are civilized enough to respect the opposite thoughts.
If you call yourself a hero for distributing these emails and for sitting somewhere and surf internet all day long, you're in the wrong business.

If you call yourself a patriot for just ignoring our problems (and every country has them), you're a moron not giving a shit about the USA and the democracy we stand for. Not even to mention your children's future and your family for that matter.

As for my past -- you may see it as a cowardness, or the other way around. If you read my posts and if you have any brains, you may have figured out where I come from and the chronology of the events that lead to my move to the USA. Maybe because the military service over there was mandatory, and maybe because I was against fighting with my neighbors just because they belonged to a different religion. Maybe I left because I saw something you will never see in your sorry life (like a pile of 40 dead bablies, and so on). Maybe I left because I did not believe the future was possible in the country that you could not freely wals on the streets because of your age.

You will never understand how different it is to be in the war I have been in -- untrained, no communications systems, no plan, no real reason to fight. That is when I realized that the military of any country should be a defencive force, not offensive.

So, I question this war as do many Americans (MAJORITY) as is the media, as is THE WORLD. I never question if you or your medic friend is right. You're following the orders. I question those above you. And of course the one that evaded the military service, himself. Unfortunately, there will always be bad people in any business -- we have seen the takn against the cab, we have seen the Haifa events. I may have seen the Humvee thing differently than you did, and later I corrected myself.

SOme of you immediately connect the critisizm towards the Administration as towards you. No, most of people (including myself) appreciate what you're doing because you're doing your job. And that is all.

The point is not that a few the medic chatted with support our efforts -- the point is IT IS NOT OUR PLACE TO BE THERE! Why in the hell we decided to go there over the other (much worse) places???

Finally, I doubt even your friend could get a piece of complete picture within "a couple of months" he's been there... You have to study their history to really understand what is behind...

Well where to start, Its not about being civilized when it comes to talking to you. Every chance you get you fly off the handle and criticize pretty much everything. Which is fine but one to many times you have said the wrong thing which I and obviously others taken offense to.

I don't call my self anything and I'm trying to figure out how I of all people can or could be ignoring the problems of the USA and the democracy we stand for. Especially since the US military is carrying most of them on their backs. My buddies letter just demonstrates that since you haven't been there you don't have a clue, there for everything that you point out on here is nothing more then what you've read.

Third.....War is War....I'm not saying what you went though wasn't what you say it was but they all suck. I figure you're from Balkans and as for your reason to leave your country I don't care, everyones got a story. Now you came to my country with your liberal views, your probably one of the people out there that tells your kid not to stand up in the morning and say the Pledge of Allegiance or that its wrong to say Merry Christmas. Regardless that your right, but don't pretend to know what I do, or know what I stand for.

Now this is the part that I can't wait to get into....You say "It's not our place to be there" Well guess what, we're there welcome to reality. It's not a matter of why are we there anymore. Hell we've been there for the past 4 years almost. The question is how do we leave and in doing so how do we leave it better then we found it. Another words how do we leave it with out leaving it a pit for terrorist groups to train in order to hit us again.

It's irrelevant at this point how we got there we can't go back and change that and guess what there isn't court in the world that's going to convict GW. Sorry time to move on to another target. I don't care if you do criticize him. He's also there for the next two year and he was elected to the position by the majority...... so to bad so sad.

Lastly since you say you were in a war. You of all people should know that in when your battle tuned your sense of awareness steps up to a new level and when you work 15 hours a day your situational awareness increases very quickly. In addition you're right about history. Regardless though right now there are a bunch of thugs in Iraq and they're about to be removed.

P.S.
What about everyone that has died doing what they believe is right. What if we pull out....Then how do we honor their sacrifice? Many of those men and women died doing what they believe was right.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

ski360, get off my back you f'n idiot. As you can see there are normal people here that do not share my opinion, but are civilized enough to respect the opposite thoughts.
If you call yourself a hero for distributing these emails and for sitting somewhere and surf internet all day long, you're in the wrong business.

...

SOme of you immediately connect the critisizm towards the Administration as towards you. No, most of people (including myself) appreciate what you're doing because you're doing your job. And that is all.

The point is not that a few the medic chatted with support our efforts -- the point is IT IS NOT OUR PLACE TO BE THERE! Why in the hell we decided to go there over the other (much worse) places???

If I may interject, I think this problem stems from those in the military and and those outside having a different perspective on the nature of war and how the soldiers got there.

Soldiers generally do think of any one individual as having sent them into harm's way. They see what they do as service to the nation and that the nation has asked them to perform a task that is important enough for them to risk their lives accomplishing it. While people outside the military can speak of Iraq as "Bush's war" or Vietnam as "Johnson's war," the soldier look at it as America's war.

Soldiers also look at war as a win or lose proposition and if it is important enough to the nation to send them into a war, it should be equally as important to win it. I think what most soldiers would object to is not criticism of specific strategies or tactics in fighting the war (soldiers do that all the time themselves) but the questioning of the importance of winning the war once we have committed to it.

We, as a nation, sent those young men over there to accomplish a mission that we, as a nation, agreed was an important mission. The questions and doubts over the importance of the mission should have been dealt with prior to the first soldier setting foot over there. Once the decision has been made, we owe it to those soldiers not to second guess it until they do what we asked them to do.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

If I may interject, I think this problem stems from those in the military and and those outside having a different perspective on the nature of war and how the soldiers got there.

Soldiers generally do think of any one individual as having sent them into harm's way. They see what they do as service to the nation and that the nation has asked them to perform a task that is important enough for them to risk their lives accomplishing it. While people outside the military can speak of Iraq as "Bush's war" or Vietnam as "Johnson's war," the soldier look at it as America's war.

Soldiers also look at war as a win or lose proposition and if it is important enough to the nation to send them into a war, it should be equally as important to win it. I think what most soldiers would object to is not criticism of specific strategies or tactics in fighting the war (soldiers do that all the time themselves) but the questioning of the importance of winning the war once we have committed to it.

We, as a nation, sent those young men over there to accomplish a mission that we, as a nation, agreed was an important mission. The questions and doubts over the importance of the mission should have been dealt with prior to the first soldier setting foot over there. Once the decision has been made, we owe it to those soldiers not to second guess it until they do what we asked them to do.

I agree with both posts above.
However, what the real question should be:
- This is not OUR war, this is the war to enable Iraq to function. If we succeed in it, is anyone going to thank us, or just say, OK, great, get out.
- We got in, and that is it. Now, is it worth loosing more lives over there or it is enough? Is it worth loosing more money? Yes, we can quit now and deal with OUR daily problems and other potential problems, and get this Iraq thing out of our every day lives. ski360 mentioned that the Military carries us on their backs... It SHOULD NOT be that way...it is not that way anywhere elese in the world!
- Is this war going to make my kid's lives any better and any safer?
- Is this going to cost us another un-wise decision -- next time it may be necessary to act quickly, but we may just wait too long because of this experience
- Will this cause a "payback" in the future -- more terrorist action against us, more desire to do it, less respect from other nations...
- I doubt this will be over in next 24 months. What is the next prez decides to pull out -- then we wasted more lives and billions over next 2 years. It is pretty sure that the next prez will not be Republican at this point...

Finally, is quitting now an option at all?

[ski360]

Originally Posted by dr325i

I agree with both posts above.
However, what the real question should be:
- This is not OUR war, this is the war to enable Iraq to function. If we succeed in it, is anyone going to thank us, or just say, OK, great, get out.
- We got in, and that is it. Now, is it worth loosing more lives over there or it is enough? Is it worth loosing more money? Yes, we can quit now and deal with OUR daily problems and other potential problems, and get this Iraq thing out of our every day lives. ski360 mentioned that the Military carries us on their backs... It SHOULD NOT be that way...it is not that way anywhere elese in the world!
- Is this war going to make my kid's lives any better and any safer?
- Is this going to cost us another un-wise decision -- next time it may be necessary to act quickly, but we may just wait too long because of this experience
- Will this cause a "payback" in the future -- more terrorist action against us, more desire to do it, less respect from other nations...
- I doubt this will be over in next 24 months. What is the next prez decides to pull out -- then we wasted more lives and billions over next 2 years. It is pretty sure that the next prez will not be Republican at this point...

Finally, is quitting now an option at all?

Will this war make things safer for your kids in the future? I'd have to say yes it will. At this point if we leave, what's going to fill the void? It's already filled with splinter cell's of Al Qaida. If we leave now with out finishing it, then its only a matter of time till they take a hold of Iraq and all the innocent people that live there. In which case we would only have to go back later on.

No one ever thanks us for anything we do. It's the nature of the rest of the world. You name one time when another country and its people thanked the US for lending a hand. Everyone wants the money but no one wants to contribute or say thanks. Talk about money do you have any idea how much money the US government sends to other countries for food or medical supplies. I'm sure the numbers dwarf the money being sent to Iraq and if they don't then it's at least close.

Here's an example, The Tsunami in India we sent a carrier to render supplies and aid. The rest of the world response was...."what thats it?" Some of the helo's got shot at, not to mention did anyone stop to think about how much money it cost not only to send that carrier there but how much it cost to just let it sit off the coast. We're talking about a 4 billion dollar piece of equipment.

[ganeil]

- This is not OUR war, this is the war to enable Iraq to function. If we succeed in it, is anyone going to thank us, or just say, OK, great, get out.

Of course it is our war. Is it in our national interest that there be a government in Iraq that fights rather than supports terrorists? That offers the region an alternative between autocratic dictatorships and radical islamists? I would say yes to both. Whether anyone there will thank us is irrelevant. We do what we do because we believe it is in our national interest not because someone else will appreciate it.

- We got in, and that is it. Now, is it worth loosing more lives over there or it is enough? Is it worth loosing more money? Yes, we can quit now and deal with OUR daily problems and other potential problems, and get this Iraq thing out of our every day lives. ski360 mentioned that the Military carries us on their backs... It SHOULD NOT be that way...it is not that way anywhere elese in the world!

If we succeed it will be worth it. If we quit, the lives lost were surely wasted. I don't recall there being provisos in the congressional authorization laying out how much blood and treasure we would expend to accomplish the mission. The thing about war is that once you commit to it, the commitment should be total. We find ourself in a strange historical predicament where our ability to wage war is constrained more by the damage we wish to inflict than the damage we that can be inflicted upon us.

- Is this war going to make my kid's lives any better and any safer?

I would say that my children will be safer if 'al-Qaeda is not provided safe haven by another regime as they were by the Taliban. They will be safer if Iran is constrained by pro-western neighbors rather than empowered by a puppet government to the west.

- Is this going to cost us another un-wise decision -- next time it may be necessary to act quickly, but we may just wait too long because of this experience

That will depend on who we elect to make those decisions. I assure you that quitting in Vietnam did not improve our ability to act decisively. Certainly, repeating that experience will not be any different.

- Will this cause a "payback" in the future -- more terrorist action against us, more desire to do it, less respect from other nations...

You wish to blame us for what the terrorists do. Quitting in Iraq will only embolden those who wish to harm us.

- I doubt this will be over in next 24 months. What is the next prez decides to pull out -- then we wasted more lives and billions over next 2 years. It is pretty sure that the next prez will not be Republican at this point...

I guess we will see in Nov 2008.

Finally, is quitting now an option at all?

I would hope not.

[Desert Bimmer]

GET OUT...pERIOD!

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by Desert Bimmer

GET OUT...pERIOD!

That is what I like. I well thought out and reasoned response. Why bother with possible repercussions?

[mike138]

aghhhhhhhh

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

That is what I like. I well thought out and reasoned response. Why bother with possible repercussions?

Or maybe people do not believe the leaders and their plans any more. Maybe this whole unprepared, unplanned attack against the JOKE army of Iraq with no insight what would happen after toppling Saddam (now) just made people sick of our world dominance and policing??? It is obvious that our military planners failed miserably, that the financial planners did the same...and all the way up the chain of command. People of America are fed up with it. Especially because more and more of our soldiers are dying every day.
Iraq army was a joke and this whole thing should have been planned better. Can you imagine a conflict against the real defensive force like NK or Iran...we would have no chance with the planning like this.

And for what...winning in Iraq does not guarantee andy safed and better future for us...probably only for Iraqis. The majority of threat (call them terrorists if you will) are most likely outside of Iraq planning new attacks either on our troops in Iraq, or on the USA...

That is why I said above this is NOT our war. We should be fighting against the real threat to us, not this Bush desire to fullfil some of his wishes -- either oil wishes, daddy's wishes, dominance wishes...who knows...

[ganeil]

The part of military planning that you do not seem to understand is that the enemy gets a vote in how the war goes as well. There were definitely some aspects of the post-Saddam military situation that unexpectedly occurred and some aspects that unexpectedly did not occur. This does not mean the planners failed in anything other than the ability to perfectly predict the future.

Military operations are all about Action, Reaction, and Counteraction. For you to assume that our changing of tactics to react to a change in the enemy's tactics is evidence of a failure on our part simply highlights your ignorance on the subject.

I am curious why you believe either Iran or North Korea would fare any better in a conventional war with us than Iraq did? If you wish to argue that both of these nations will learn the lessons of Iraq and choose to fight us in a protracted insurgent style rather than toe to toe you would have a valid point but to imply that they could go toe to toe is something else entirely.

If you are expecting guarantees of future safety, I would chalk that up as further irrational thinking on your part. There can be no guarantees, the best we or anyone can do is make an assessment based on the information available.

It is our war. It became our war the moment our President and our Congress sent our soldiers to fight it.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

The part of military planning that you do not seem to understand is that the enemy gets a vote in how the war goes as well. There were definitely some aspects of the post-Saddam military situation that unexpectedly occurred and some aspects that unexpectedly did not occur. This does not mean the planners failed in anything other than the ability to perfectly predict the future. .

I actually do understand that there is the other side in the War. However, what you fail to admit is that the planners did not only fail to perfectly predict the future (which no one should expect from them) but they failed the basics:
1) They failed to calculate the amount of troops needed
2) They failed to calculate how much time and money is needed
3) They failed to recognize that the borders with Iran and Syria would have to be controlled better
4) They failed to study the history and recognize that the multi-ethnic environment would be hard to please
5) They failed to recognize the end of the conflict by letting the clown do the air carrier thing
and much more

Originally Posted by ganeil

Military operations are all about Action, Reaction, and Counteraction. For you to assume that our changing of tactics to react to a change in the enemy's tactics is evidence of a failure on our part simply highlights your ignorance on the subject.
.

Changing tactics is desired in every situation, in the Wars and in every day life. And it is good to recognize that. However, changing it just to change it is not good. Again, it needs to be pllanned right. It needs to assure the American public that this change will not only delay the next fiasco but contribute to something positive.

Also, I do blame GWB for the Nation division. Just look at the senate debate nowdays. They cannot pass the basic ammendments -- Republicans are stubborn to agree on anything, Dems are scared of Bush's tactics to call anyone unpatriotic that does not follow his ideas.

Originally Posted by ganeil

I am curious why you believe either Iran or North Korea would fare any better in a conventional war with us than Iraq did? If you wish to argue that both of these nations will learn the lessons of Iraq and choose to fight us in a protracted insurgent style rather than toe to toe you would have a valid point but to imply that they could go toe to toe is something else entirely.
.

The US Army has no chance engaging against...lets say a million people Army on Korean soil. Our Army is not properly trained for the engagement like that. Clinton's advisers have realized that in the War in Yugoslavia and they stuck to the Air assult. However, Yugoslavia had a lot to loose by allowing a complete infrastructure destruction and cities ruined. NK does not have much to loose because they do not have it to begin with and a regular person over there does not need highways because they do not own the cars. So, in their case it would be the ground war.
Also, you pointed out (before) that the colleteral damage is caused because the enemy is hiding within the populated areas -- therefore, putting the blame solely on the enemy. Well, they have two options -- 1) to hide among others and survive (kind of the only media propaganda they can have) or 2) be alive target. By causing more colleteral damage they are hopin the world (sane people) would react properly. It would be up to us to recognize all that.
Next -- the communications. Our military is modern military and trained that way. The comm systems jammers do not work in that situation when they use land lines, etc...
ANd yes, the guerilla (spell?) war would be their only option, and the best option. Of course no one would expect them to launch the Mig 21's up there to fight our F16's, or to try to match our weapons.
In the end -- we would have no chance in the ground war with the NK for example...unless a total draft was o be instituted...and then, again -- no chance.

Originally Posted by ganeil

If you are expecting guarantees of future safety, I would chalk that up as further irrational thinking on your part. There can be no guarantees, the best we or anyone can do is make an assessment based on the information available. .

Of course, it is hard to guarantee anything nowdays..
However, it is easy to see the opposite nowdays.
If you're sinking the country into bankruptcy, if you're dividing the nation, if you're setting up this democracy to function on idea "If you don't agree with me, you're unpatriotic", if you're setting us up to be completely hated from the rest of the World, and more and more nations would turn against us, if you're setting up the future of your military to be understaffed because less people would join...when we actually need much more than we have... yes, I think it is rational to think that the future does not look bright.

You can protect yourself and your soil by exactly doing it -- protect it -- invest into protecting what you have -- like, lets say Germany, France, China, Russia, Japan...are trying to do. Trying to own the world and trying to occupy the World would leave too many holes and opportunities for the attacks back home...

Originally Posted by ganeil

It is our war. It became our war the moment our President and our Congress sent our soldiers to fight it.

Correct, at the moment.
Yes, I did smoke for 17 yars. It was my issue, I decided on it. But I did not decide to switch from Marlboro to Dunhill or to Marlboro Ultra Lights because it has less nicotine, or so. I decided to quit because I thought it was best for my future... Someetims quitting does not make you a quitter, but a smart person. Looks to me that at this point it is all about the pride and Bush future reputation -- he cannot allow it to be another lost war in the history -- so he would rather spent trillions on it and many lives than close it when he can...

[ski360]

Originally Posted by ganeil

The part of military planning that you do not seem to understand is that the enemy gets a vote in how the war goes as well. There were definitely some aspects of the post-Saddam military situation that unexpectedly occurred and some aspects that unexpectedly did not occur. This does not mean the planners failed in anything other than the ability to perfectly predict the future.

Military operations are all about Action, Reaction, and Counteraction. For you to assume that our changing of tactics to react to a change in the enemy's tactics is evidence of a failure on our part simply highlights your ignorance on the subject.

I am curious why you believe either Iran or North Korea would fare any better in a conventional war with us than Iraq did? If you wish to argue that both of these nations will learn the lessons of Iraq and choose to fight us in a protracted insurgent style rather than toe to toe you would have a valid point but to imply that they could go toe to toe is something else entirely.

If you are expecting guarantees of future safety, I would chalk that up as further irrational thinking on your part. There can be no guarantees, the best we or anyone can do is make an assessment based on the information available.

It is our war. It became our war the moment our President and our Congress sent our soldiers to fight it.

+1

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

I actually do understand that there is the other side in the War. However, what you fail to admit is that the planners did not only fail to perfectly predict the future (which no one should expect from them) but they failed the basics:
1) They failed to calculate the amount of troops needed
2) They failed to calculate how much time and money is needed
3) They failed to recognize that the borders with Iran and Syria would have to be controlled better
4) They failed to study the history and recognize that the multi-ethnic environment would be hard to please
5) They failed to recognize the end of the conflict by letting the clown do the air carrier thing and much more

1- The number of troops required to deal with Iraq's regular military forces was not miscalculated. The problem occurred when the number and types of troops in the pipeline for the post-conventional phase were not the right type for the situation that developed. We planned for a situation where the most pressing problems would be civilian dislocation and deprivation and that was not the case. We were surprised by the speed at which the Ba'athists and the 'al-Qaeda elements were able to organize into an operational insurgency. We expected a window of opportunity to get a provisional Iraqi government on its feet and begin to train a new security force before opposition could organize, we assumed wrong. The alternative of course, was to pour more forces into the country after Saddam fell and then have people (like you) blame us for causing the insurgency and inflaming the populace by our heavy presence.

2 - I do not remember anyone giving a firm estimate on how long it would take or how much money. I do remember being told it would be a long, hard struggle.

3- I do not believe anyone underestimated the need to secure either the Iranian or Syrian border. Quite simply the failure to adequately do so flows from the same assumption mentioned above, the time the opposition would need to organize.

4- I defy you to read about GEN Abazaid and tell me he does not understand and appreciate the history of the region.

5- Have you ever read the speech the President gave on the deck of the Lincoln? He said we successfully rid Iraq of Saddam. He never said our job was finished. He said,

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes... The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

The US Army has no chance engaging against...lets say a million people Army on Korean soil. Our Army is not properly trained for the engagement like that. Clinton's advisers have realized that in the War in Yugoslavia and they stuck to the Air assult. However, Yugoslavia had a lot to loose by allowing a complete infrastructure destruction and cities ruined. NK does not have much to loose because they do not have it to begin with and a regular person over there does not need highways because they do not own the cars. So, in their case it would be the ground war.
Also, you pointed out (before) that the colleteral damage is caused because the enemy is hiding within the populated areas -- therefore, putting the blame solely on the enemy. Well, they have two options -- 1) to hide among others and survive (kind of the only media propaganda they can have) or 2) be alive target. By causing more colleteral damage they are hopin the world (sane people) would react properly. It would be up to us to recognize all that.
Next -- the communications. Our military is modern military and trained that way. The comm systems jammers do not work in that situation when they use land lines, etc...
ANd yes, the guerilla (spell?) war would be their only option, and the best option. Of course no one would expect them to launch the Mig 21's up there to fight our F16's, or to try to match our weapons.
In the end -- we would have no chance in the ground war with the NK for example...unless a total draft was o be instituted...and then, again -- no chance.

I am not sure how you come about the limited military knowledge you have but I would suggest you find another source. The idea that we would be unable to deal with North Korea in a conventional conflict and are not trained to do so is absurd. A conflict with north Korea would undoubtedly be very bloody and wreak havoc on the infrastructure of the RoK but there is little doubt that north Korean military would lose any conflict with the combined forces of the US and RoK. The confined mobility corridors

Correct, at the moment.
Yes, I did smoke for 17 yars. It was my issue, I decided on it. But I did not decide to switch from Marlboro to Dunhill or to Marlboro Ultra Lights because it has less nicotine, or so. I decided to quit because I thought it was best for my future... Someetims quitting does not make you a quitter, but a smart person. Looks to me that at this point it is all about the pride and Bush future reputation -- he cannot allow it to be another lost war in the history -- so he would rather spent trillions on it and many lives than close it when he can...

Looks to me like you refuse to accept that there are consequences to quitting. Your pessimism and misguided delusions of what may motivate the conviction of the President and others that this is a fight we have to win is further evidence that you have allowed your irrational hatred of this President to control your thinking in this matter.

I am certainly glad you were not around during the dark days for the Union in 1863 or after Battle for Kasserine Pass in 1943. War's are won or lost, the only way we can lose this one is by quitting.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

1- The number of troops required to deal with Iraq's regular military forces was not miscalculated. The problem occurred when the number and types of troops in the pipeline for the post-conventional phase were not the right type for the situation that developed. We planned for a situation where the most pressing problems would be civilian dislocation and deprivation and that was not the case. We were surprised by the speed at which the Ba'athists and the 'al-Qaeda elements were able to organize into an operational insurgency. We expected a window of opportunity to get a provisional Iraqi government on its feet and begin to train a new security force before opposition could organize, we assumed wrong. The alternative of course, was to pour more forces into the country after Saddam fell and then have people (like you) blame us for causing the insurgency and inflaming the populace by our heavy presence.
.

Actually, there was not insurgency in Iraq before we stepped in. The "Iron Fist" was preventing all that. Actually, I would not call all of them "insurgents", some of them are actually -- resistance. Fighting against agression.

Originally Posted by ganeil

2 - I do not remember anyone giving a firm estimate on how long it would take or how much money. I do remember being told it would be a long, hard struggle.
.

Correct, the "firm" estimate was never given, however, no one has even thought that 4 years later a lot is left to be done. For God sake, the WW2 lasted less than 5 years! Plus, if Bush said that it would cost a trillion of $ to do it, I don't think Congress or anyone in the right mind would approve it. Get my point? He misled everyone on this war -- PPT presentations, rushing, "With me or not patriot", used the 911 for his personal fullfilment, no length limit...

3- I do not believe anyone underestimated the need to secure either the Iranian or Syrian border. Quite simply the failure to adequately do so flows from the same assumption mentioned above, the time the opposition would need to organize.

Originally Posted by ganeil

4- I defy you to read about GEN Abazaid and tell me he does not understand and appreciate the history of the region.
.

Then, he (them) is not either applying his knowledge correctly or he simply thought he knew it... Please see the link:
http://www.geocities.com/onlythecapt...npub090503.pdf

Originally Posted by ganeil

5- Have you ever read the speech the President gave on the deck of the Lincoln? He said we successfully rid Iraq of Saddam. He never said our job was finished. He said,

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes... The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

.

Actually, I avoid listening to his crap.
Anyway, all I remember is the sign "Mission Accomplished".
Also, above in his speach -- he says "the parts of the counrey remain dangerous". That was then. Now, it is the whole country, there is no safe place in Iraq!


I am not sure how you come about the limited military knowledge you have but I would suggest you find another source. The idea that we would be unable to deal with North Korea in a conventional conflict and are not trained to do so is absurd. A conflict with north Korea would undoubtedly be very bloody and wreak havoc on the infrastructure of the RoK but there is little doubt that north Korean military would lose any conflict with the combined forces of the US and RoK. The confined mobility corridors

Originally Posted by ganeil

Looks to me like you refuse to accept that there are consequences to quitting. Your pessimism and misguided delusions of what may motivate the conviction of the President and others that this is a fight we have to win is further evidence that you have allowed your irrational hatred of this President to control your thinking in this matter.
.

I guess, I and 6.5B other people are irrational and all the media is just talking crap nowdays... All is going great over there...exactly as planned and desired...

Originally Posted by ganeil

I am certainly glad you were not around during the dark days for the Union in 1863 or after Battle for Kasserine Pass in 1943. War's are won or lost, the only way we can lose this one is by quitting.
.

You're comparing the WW2 war with this??? Give me a break please

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Actually, there was not insurgency in Iraq before we stepped in. The "Iron Fist" was preventing all that. Actually, I would not call all of them "insurgents", some of them are actually -- resistance. Fighting against agression.

Actually there were active insurgencies in the south (Shia Marsh Arabs) and the north (Kurds) against Saddam's regime. Obviously there was no Ba'athist insurgency before we got there, they were in charge.

Then, he (them) is not either applying his knowledge correctly or he simply thought he knew it... Please see the link:
http://www.geocities.com/onlythecapt...npub090503.pdf

What was the point of that link? Should we have given more weight to the opinion of a reserve captain over those of a general who had actually lived and studied in the region?

Actually, I avoid listening to his crap.
Anyway, all I remember is the sign "Mission Accomplished".
Also, above in his speach -- he says "the parts of the counrey remain dangerous". That was then. Now, it is the whole country, there is no safe place in Iraq!

The mission of toppling Saddam's regime was accomplished. He said more work needed to be done before we could leave and he was right.

The vast majority of the violence in Iraq is confined to Baghdad and al Anbar province. The rest of the country, especially the Kurdish region is relatively safe.

You're comparing the WW2 war with this??? Give me a break please

Actually you are, see above.

[Iguy]

Wow, been away for a bit...its encouraging to see that this thread is still alive. Few personal flames in it , but hey....both sides have strong opinions, thus the emotion I guess.

Ok, ok,........Ganeil and ski360.........in your best opinion.......how many more troops do we send? How much more dollars do we pour in? Time line wise, how long do you think it will take to control all the terrorist activity in the region?

I don't think the Americans want to be there for another 15+ years. So do we invade Syria? Do we invade Iran?

Be really nice to get a British fella coming in here

[dr335is]

So, no matter what evidences, or media quotes or...are given to you, you simply dispute them by telling me:

1) Yep, it was violent in Iraq before, not much worse now except for Baghdad and Anbar Pr.
2) Yep, the insurgency was all over it before...although the word insurgency was "invented" during this war
3) Bush predicted that after 4 years basically nothing was done (actually it is worse now) and that we will stay there for decades
4) When Bush did his little Air Carrier thing -- he did it only to celebrate Saddam capture
5) The war in Iraq where we occupied the sovereign country is of the same weight as the WW2 where we fought to defend our soil and our alies
6) All Iraq war planning was done adequately and carefully and everything what is happening was expected (almost everything)
7) A war against NK (for example) fighting 1M people in the completely different terrain would be comparable to fighting (lets say in the worst case) 100,000 insurgents in the desert
8) Increasing the number of troops by (only) 15% is a good approach although 90% of analysts say not enough
9) This war was completely supported and approved by the UN, although initially only 34 countries joined, out of 34 countries, 2 of them contributed with 99% of man-power, funds, and equipment...and unfortunately casualties;
10) If we win the war in Iraq, we will win the war on Terror, although we're so focused (and stretched) in Iraq that terrorists can freely train and operate in many other countries of the world now. Even in "our" Afghanistan, we get daily reports of Taliban re-capturing cities. Wait, I thought there is no more Taliban???
11) Saddam used the WMD in 80's against kurds and murdered (lets exaggerate) 50,000 of them for the reasons known to him -- because they did not want to follow his rules. We used the A-bombs in the 40's and murdered 250,000 people (no exaggeration) because Japan did not want to follow our wishes, but now we dictate who is going to have the biombs and who's not?
....................There is more, but I am too lazy now...................

On the other topic (from Israel thread):

12) We supported the Albanian separation in Serbia because they were the majority in the region and not allowed to have thir own rights...whatever. If the Palestinians (Arabs) want the same from Israel, we do not support it. Is that the justice?

Economy THreads:

13) The housing market -- sucks
14) Job market looks OK, however, there are still huge lay offs int he Tech markets -- very unstable
15) Instead of improving our medical plans, we are investing all the $$$ in this war. An example -- Went to the nutricionist yesterday, the insurance will not pay the visit because I do not already have the diabetes, although my mom has it, and it runs in my family...
16) the buying power nowdays is much worse than it used to be due to the prices increase of the common goods

and so on...

Of course, there are good things, too. However, they are just overshadowed by this war and the terrorist fears. That is what they exactly wanted, I guess...

PS. the link above was from ski360. Just to show that there are different views from people that are in there...

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by Iguy

Wow, been away for a bit...its encouraging to see that this thread is still alive. Few personal flames in it , but hey....both sides have strong opinions, thus the emotion I guess.

Ok, ok,........Ganeil and ski360.........in your best opinion.......how many more troops do we send? How much more dollars do we pour in? Time line wise, how long do you think it will take to control all the terrorist activity in the region?

I don't think the Americans want to be there for another 15+ years. So do we invade Syria? Do we invade Iran?

Be really nice to get a British fella coming in here

I think a lot of what you are looking for depends on the Iraqis. At the end of the day they are going to be the ones who have to secure their country. How long we have to remain there in a combat role depends to a great extent on how long it takes the Iraqis to make the political compromises and agreements that will be necessary if Iraq is to remain a unified state. We have to give them the training, equipment, and time to accomplish that.

I think the current plan has the overall numbers about right for Baghdad but I think al Anbar could probably use one or even two brigades more than currently planned. Within those overall numbers are the Iraqi units and if they prove incapable of performing to the level we anticipate, we may have to send in additional forces to make up the difference.

I would not think that an invasion of Iran or Syria is likely. What may, and I hope would, happen is we would not feel constrained by the border if we believe material support, training, or equipment was flowing across the border. Limited incursions by ground and/or air forces to destroy those sites regardless of which side of the line they are on would be entirely appropriate.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

I think a lot of what you are looking for depends on the Iraqis. At the end of the day they are going to be the ones who have to secure their country. How long we have to remain there in a combat role depends to a great extent on how long it takes the Iraqis to make the political compromises and agreements that will be necessary if Iraq is to remain a unified state. We have to give them the training, equipment, and time to accomplish that.

I think the current plan has the overall numbers about right for Baghdad but I think al Anbar could probably use one or even two brigades more than currently planned. Within those overall numbers are the Iraqi units and if they prove incapable of performing to the level we anticipate, we may have to send in additional forces to make up the difference.

I would not think that an invasion of Iran or Syria is likely. What may, and I hope would, happen is we would not feel constrained by the border if we believe material support, training, or equipment was flowing across the border. Limited incursions by ground and/or air forces to destroy those sites regardless of which side of the line they are on would be entirely appropriate.

Entirely appropriate to cross into the Syrian or Iranian side???
So, that would not be against any int'l rules?
WOW, do it...the world needs to end the way it is anyway...

[Iguy]

How long we have to remain there in a combat role depends to a great extent on how long it takes the Iraqis to make the political compromises and agreements that will be necessary if Iraq is to remain a unified state.

How long will that take???????

I think you know the answer, and its not in a couple of months. So bearing this in mind, I think its reasonable to say that it will take 10+ years. Are the American people ready to sink that much money and effort? Whats the US deficit to date?

I would not think that an invasion of Iran or Syria is likely. What may, and I hope would, happen is we would not feel constrained by the border if we believe material support, training, or equipment was flowing across the border. Limited incursions by ground and/or air forces to destroy those sites regardless of which side of the line they are on would be entirely appropriate.

Yes, you may want to do this, but I don't think the rest of the world would view this as appropriate. How about technical information crossing over boarders that threaten the US. Like for example the information being shared with North Korea, are you saying that the US need to address this also?

As much as you want to strike at Iran and Syria, YOU DONT HAVE THE NUMBERS OR MONEY TO DO SO....period! Unless you want to have China do it! Good luck convincing them.

I think al Anbar could probably use one or even two brigades more than currently planned.

How many in a brigade? Not being sarcastic, I really don't know.
How many brigades in Iraq now? How many do you need for the suggestion of attacking Syria and Iran?

EDIT: I looked it up and that equates to about 3-5 thousand in a brigade. Two brigades is only half of what Bush suggested to congress not to long ago.