Iraq doomed

[AZTOY]

You can not like the plan.
You can think the plan is full of crap.

But you cannot truthfully say there is no plan, because it's been public (and revised, as events dictated - the ISG for instance) for years. Here ya go, straight from the horse's mouth.f

Yes we have a plan BUT.....................


If had this plan in WWII do think we would have won?


(German) Ich denke, dass wir verloren hätten

 

[Kaylee]

foob - ah, now see, I can see that argument on it's own. But I don't believe it indicates ignorance on DD's part of the sunni and shia'a populations of Saudi and Iran respectively, especially as his analysis of the dispositions of folk throughout Iraq looks pretty spot on.

To the argument itself.. I don't think Sunni Saudi wants a fundamentalist Shia'a Iraq on their border. While they might well allow US forces to stage from our existing bases there, I suspect they wouldn't trust us as worth a darn if we leave Iraq. I don't pretend to have enough knowledge to make a reasonable guess as to whether they'd let US forces stage for campaigns back into Iraq from Saudi soil, but I don't *think* they'd tell us to get the heck out. I think they like having us there as a buffer. However, I'd also expect Al-Q's budget to get a *very* hefty under the table donation to make mischief if it looks like Iran-backed Shia'a are going to be running the show in Iraq.

woody- I really don't think the Dems are thinking that far ahead. The more I look at the "pull out now" folks (at least on the left) the more they look like they share the fundamental misconception of the anti-gun base supporting the grabbers. Namely, that by showing a passive and submissive attitude to a predator, he'll let you escape unhurt.

AZTOY - you may be correct.
But then again, I'm not convinced the American people have the stomach for any sustained conflict anymore.

-K

 

[strambo]

Umm...since WWII wasn't a Stability and Support Operation or a counter-insurgency...there is absolutely no parallel. Now, if in post WWII Germany, some local commie citizens started bombing stuff...yes the plan would have been similar.

Since quitting means it was all for nothing...I think it is a plot to always get us to quit, ergo war is always for nothing, therefore we never go to war. Stick head in sand and tell ourselves everything will be alright. Nobody will attack us, we're "peaceful".

I'm not worried about terrorists taking over the US, or even terrorism in general. The lives lost to terrorism are a small dent in our mortality rate. Rolling over and quitting due to weakness bothers me. Making it so that our soldiers died for nothing bothers me. Refusing to respond at all to the terrorists of the world like all through the 90's bothers me. Leaving our friends in Iraq who trust us and depend on us to a horrific fate...bothers me. Risking unforseen 2nd, 3rd or 4th order effects (unintended consequences) bothers me.

All because the media and the left tell us we can't stomach a few casualties. All because they tell us we can't win and that we're losing (says who?) All because they keep repeating the gloom and doom defeatism enough times and through enough media outlets that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Why is the US media the exclusive PR firm for terrorism? Why do they report 100% of successful terrorist operations and almost none of the terrorist failures? Why don't they report on the building of schools, hospitals, roads? Why, when we conduct an offensive operation and take the fight to the terrorists do they say "In an upsurge in violence in Iraq..yada yada) making it seem like the terrorists are the ones on the offensive? The media tail is wagging the dog. I've been both places...ask anyone else who's been there too.

Why do you rarely hear about Afghanistan? Gee, sorry, not enough US soldiers die to make the news on a regular basis. You get to hear about all who do though...on those rare occasions. Ever hear about construction projects? If so, how often? 1% of all reporting...if that? That is the bulk of what is going on...in both theatres. I guess I'm done ranting...

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

"Misconception Fundamentalists"

Kaylee, that's a good definition of liberals in general and the the majority of Democrats: The "Misconception Fundamentalists". We can call them Misconception Fundamentalist Activists, or FMA's for short.

I like it!

Woody

 

[foob]

I don't pretend to have enough knowledge to make a reasonable guess as to whether they'd let US forces stage for campaigns back into Iraq from Saudi soil, but I don't *think* they'd tell us to get the heck out.

Hehe I have no clue too, I just make up stuff and go with it. I think sometimes I am a troll without knowing I'm one. I just have views that differ from most THR members. And probably as a sign of my immaturity, I get really irritated when I see them and have to respond. It's an itch that must be scratched. From your posts in other L&P threads, I know my views differ from yours significantly.

 

[xd45gaper]

Any pullout from Iraq before the country is stabilized will cause a power vacuum that somebody will fill, and the one thing that’s certain is that whoever the somebody is, they won’t be a friend of ours.

exactly look at afgahanstan and the taliban...

 

[Lone_Gunman]

But you cannot truthfully say there is no plan

Well, Kaylee, I suppose you are right. There is a plan. But its a plan that has no longer working. At some point, you have to wonder why someone would cling to a plan that isn't working. The only reason I can think of is because they have no idea what to do next.

We had a plan initially to overthrow Saddam and that worked great. But since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" we have been floundering with no clear direction.

What would have happened if our leaders had done the same thing in World War II and only planned the D-Day invasion, with no idea of what to do once the beach head was established?

 

[cbsbyte]

Don't blame the Democrats for the Iraq mess. If you want to blame someone blame the Bush adminstration for cooking the intelligence reports about WMDs. Then presenting it to the UN and congress as fact. On top of that they had no game plan after Iraq fell since they believed all the Iraqis would welcome us as heros. Boy where they wrong. Now Iraq is a haven for militants who are decimating our forces and killing civilians in a all out civil war. The Democrats are doing the only honorable thing which is to cut our losses and leave.

 

[kcmarine]

The the plan to start "cutting our losses and leave" is the "honerable" thing to do? PLEASE. Do you think the Iraqis, who we've pledged to help out, will think it's an honorable thing?


EDIT-

I just wanted to say some other things, too.

Personally, I believe we'll lose in Iraq. Not because of our military, but because of our resolve to get things done. No matter what the number of casualties might be, what kind of weapons are used, how many fought, or the training given, there is only one thing that determines who the losers and winners are in any conflict: how determined each side is to win. The insurgents in Iraq are basically a rag- tag army with no high- tech weapons systems, no navy, no air force, no commander- in- chief, no industry to support them, and no real academic education to speak of. But they do have one thing. They see this war as a holy war. Ahhhhhhhhhhchhhhhhhmed sees it as his mission from God to repel the invaders. And to then kill the invaders when the get back to their homes in the west, since the invader is an infidel. Everyone from the child attending a fundamentalist school to the mullah commanding the forces believes this, and they are willing to sacrifice their life to achieve victory.

Our country has the greatest weapons, military, command structure, and training in the world, yet we will not win if we continue this way. For us, it is a political war. We complain about how the war costs so much, how our military is stretched thin, and how there is no clear plan for victory. What's more is that we send politicians to D.C. to bicker the merits of an ongoing war. Of course, these politicians use the situation for political gain, and solving any problem would by default reduce the number of problems for them to offer you the false hope of solving while on the campaign trail during the next election cycle. All the meanwhile, our soldiers are dying, and the monsters are using both the deaths of our brave men and women combined with the examples of partisan infighting in D.C. to make us look weak in front of the rest of the world and to strengthen their point of view.

We can't depend on the rest of the world to help us. Hell, for the last 40 years, we didn't even consider Western Europe able to defend themselves against the Soviets. While we did the fighting for them, the Europeans used the money that they would have spent on a military to set up nanny states and socialist governments that, in concept, weren't all that different from the communist system that we were defending them from.

Now, on the 16th anniversary of the fall of the USSR, these European nations are being expected to help fight for their own freedoms, and are stumbling the entire way. The NATO forces in Afghanistan are beginning to have trouble with a resurgent Taliban, and while all this is happening, certain NATO allies like Germany won't even allow their soldiers to enter areas of heavy fighting for fear of casualties. One must ask what is worse: an enemy that will kill themselves to ruin the Western way of life, or a Western nation that is unwilling to sacrifice itself in the war to stop this enemy.

If this keeps up, our freedoms, our way of life, and perhaps even our own lives are certainly doomed. I have a world history class at my high school where we don't talk much about world history, but we do have a lot of discussion about issues like the War on Terror. There are 16 students in that class (including myself); 12 girls and 4 boys. At the current pace, I believe that every young woman in that class will be in a burkah by her 30th birthday and at least two of the boys will be dead by the same time as a result of this war, and more specifically, our lack of resolve to win it.

 

[cbsbyte]

The Iraqi's are embroiled in their own affairs. Most of them want us out fo the country. I sorry that Bush led us to a war we could not win but that is what happend. Ten of thousands of people of died in Iraq because of Bush's arrogance. The Iraq people where better off with Saddam then what they have now which is nothing.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Do you think the Iraqis, who we've pledged to help out, will think it's an honorable thing?

Oh I am sure they would love for us to stay and spoon feed them. I have no doubt they enjoy the security services and free construction they have been given compliments of the US Army and US taxpayers.

I think we have given them the chance to have a free society. We overthrew Saddam. Unlike cbsbyte, I think they are better off without Saddam. They are out from under a tyrant's yoke. Now, what happens to them should be up to them. The concept of self-determination is not something that Americans have a monopoly on. They are free men with free will. If they choose to allow their country to plunge into civil war, genocide, and self-destruction, that is really not our problem.

 

[QuestionEverything]

The Kurds in the north have oil, but they will clearly align with Turkey (who are clearly not friends to the US) as that is where they have cultural and religious ties.

Hilarious! And this is only one of the kernels of misinformation to be found in this thread. Turkey is fiercely opposed to an independent Kurdistan and will crush any attempt by the Kurds to establish a state. In a Shia/Sunni fight, the Kurds would basically be caught between a rock and a hard place.

The fact of the matter, is, Sunnis have a considerably better chance in the impending civil war than the Shias do. The Sunnis were traditionally Iraq's privileged minority, particularly since Saddam was one of them. They have connections to the Sunni majorities in Syria, Saudi Arabia and other countries, who don't want to see Iraq become a Shia-dominated state. The Shias have religious allies in Iran, but Persian/Arab racism may hamper that relationship. Sunnis may have a lower population in Iraq but they have a bigger power base of allies to draw on.

I suspect this will boil down to a proxy war in Iraq between the Shias and the Sunni nations. The Shias may get some help from Iran, but they'll probably lose out in the end. The Kurds will be in even worse shape. The only sure thing is that Iraq will get much, much worse before it gets better.

The US's only choice now is to stay over there and get more troops killed and provide further motivation for terrorists, or cut our losses and let the rival factions blow each other up instead of us.

And it's impossible to argue that Saddam didn't give Iraqis a better standard of living than they now have. He did deal brutally with Kurdish separatists, but he kept a lid on the Sunni/Shia rivalry and had al Qaeda members shot on sight. There was no good reason for taking him out; if the US has decided to rid the world of despotic leaders, there are several more countries we should be invading about now.

 

[kcmarine]

Again, viewing it as a political war.

We won't win until we view this war as having the same consequences that our enemies see.

 

[DunedinDragon]

Unfortunately for you, you revealed your lack of knowledge by the following quote. You pretend to understand Shia and Sunni differences, yet don't know the differences between Saudi Arabia and Iran???


Quote:
Do you think the Saudi's would allow us to stage from Saudi Arabia knowing full well that puts them at odds with Iran?

That wasn't a comment regarding Sunni's and Shia's, it was a statement about the politics and military capabilities of the two countries.

Do you have any idea where Vietnam is?
Er... Vietnam does not border or is even close to the Indian ocean. Indian ocean is also relatively large, ships leaving the suez canal can avoid all the ports/land and head straight for South East Asia (around Singapore) to get to East Asia.

Do YOU have any idea where the Straits of Malacca are? And which was closer, the Soviet naval forces in Vietnam, or the US naval forces in the Philippines? Can you figure out if those straits are within the air combat radius of Clark AB, or the Soviet Air regiment in Ho Chi Min city? Exactly how many US naval bases exist between the Suez Canal and Southeast Asia to provide support for keeping those straits open?

Maybe the reason I can spell these places so well is because I worked as a translator and intelligence analyst during that time period. What exactly did YOU do to qualify your opinion?

To the argument itself.. I don't think Sunni Saudi wants a fundamentalist Shia'a Iraq on their border. While they might well allow US forces to stage from our existing bases there, I suspect they wouldn't trust us as worth a darn if we leave Iraq. I don't pretend to have enough knowledge to make a reasonable guess as to whether they'd let US forces stage for campaigns back into Iraq from Saudi soil, but I don't *think* they'd tell us to get the heck out. I think they like having us there as a buffer. However, I'd also expect Al-Q's budget to get a *very* hefty under the table donation to make mischief if it looks like Iran-backed Shia'a are going to be running the show in Iraq.

I think you're right Kaylee in terms of our credibility with the Saudi's should we leave and allow everything to come crashing down, but there's also a considerable difference in the military capabilities between Iran and the Saudi's. They would probably prefer to stay neutral and not make any waves that would either inflame relations with Iran or within their own population. You have to remember how reticent the Saudi's were to even initially agree to allow us to stage there during the initial Gulf War and the hell and protests they went through internally once they did allow it. They have considerable anti-US sentiment in their own country to deal with. I suspect it would only get worse if they were to believe we threw Iraq to the wolves.

 

[DunedinDragon]

Hilarious! And this is only one of the kernels of misinformation to be found in this thread. Turkey is fiercely opposed to an independent Kurdistan and will crush any attempt by the Kurds to establish a state. In a Shia/Sunni fight, the Kurds would basically be caught between a rock and a hard place.

My statement wasn't meant to infer that there would be a separate Kurdistan established. More that the Kurds would have nowhere else to turn other than Turkey if it becomes every sect for themselves in Iraq. And the only reason for that is due to the large Kurdish population there, along with the attractiveness of their oil field production to the Turkish government. What else do they have to bargain with?

You know it really all boils down to one simple thing.

Is the world a safer place if we stay and try to get done what we set out to do which is establish an independent Iraq, or is the world safer if we leave and let all of these things happen? Personally, I see the former as a better and safer alternative.

 

[foob]

Unfortunately for you, you revealed your lack of ability to read. Read it again..sloooowwwly..and try to concentrate on context this time. That wasn't a comment regarding Sunni's and Shia's, it was a statement about the politics and military capabilities of the two countries.

So basically you still have no reason to justify why Saudi Arabia will refuse to allow the US to use Saudi Arabia as a base of operations if Iran invades Iraq after the US pulls out. I suppose you also don't have a reason why Kuwait or even Turkey can't be used as a base of operations.

Do YOU have any idea where the Straits of Malacca are? And which was closer, the Soviet naval forces in Vietnam, or the US naval forces in the Philippines? Can you figure out if those straits are within the air combat radius of Clark AB, or the Soviet Air regiment in Ho Chi Min city? Exactly how many US naval bases exist between the Suez Canal and Southeast Asia to provide support for keeping those straits open?

So somehow you expect us to understand that when you mention the mediterranean and vietnam, you somehow meant the Straits of Malacca? Come on man, just own up you made a mistake.

Many countries in South East Asia and South Asia are military allies of the US. Regular refueling of US warships goes on at their ports. That's the point of carrier groups, nuclear submarines and a blue water navy, the ability to project influence far from one's shores. Nuclear submarines can operate out at sea for months at a time. You think because Vietnam is closer to the Straits of Malacca than the Philippines, that the ability of the US to keep the Straits open is severely disadvantaged?

Considering the US had air bases in Thailand during the vietnam war, which is much closer to the Straits of Malacca compared to Vietnam, I still don't get your argument about air bases. Thailand continues to be part of the pentagon's "forward positioning" strategy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ce_In_Thailand

If the Soviets had start disrupting global trade to harm US interests, that would have been how World War 3 started. There would be bigger issues than keeping the Straits of Malacca open to merchant trade.

Maybe the reason I can spell these places so well is because I worked as a translator and intelligence analyst during that time period. What exactly did YOU do to qualify your opinion?

Doesn't matter if you were the National Security Advisor. Giving statements with no justification or substantiation means nothing. I'm only poking holes at your unsubstantiated opinions. Doesn't take me any credentials to do that easily.

Or we can try to establish Iraq as a country that can stand up to these pressures and keep the middle east from boiling over and placing non-US friendly nations in charge of 80% of the oil production in the middle east.

How did you even get the 80% value?

From http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/ene_oil_pro-energy-oil-production
Iran and Iraq only make up less than 11% of global oil production, and less than 29% of middle east oil production.

From the US government http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html
Iran and Iraq only make up less than 10% of global oil exports, and less than 20% of middle east oil exports.

There are a lot of non-US friendly nations. Venezuela is one, Russia isn't too friendly. I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find others. Non-US friendly doesn't mean they can prevent oil they export from reaching the US. Or even that they want to prevent it. Just because I don't like you doesn't mean we can't do business. As they say, why "cut off the nose to spite the face"?

 

[Ironbarr]

GTSteve...

All you naysayers were spouting off the same nonsense when we pulled out of Vietnam.

I'm pretty sure America didn't fall to the Communists then, and we certainly aren't going to fall to a bunch of Islamic militants now.

First - we didn't have a million plus imported vietnamese in our midst;
Second - we have a million plus imported muslims in our midst - somewhat more than a "bunch".

Not to be contrary, I just believe (not "think") that there is a major problem if the current numbers support or abet the "militants" - whether by choice or intimidation - we are in dark doo-doo.

Eternal vigilence.

 

[wooderson]

Darfur whiners

Are they related to "Rwanda whiners"?

 

[wooderson]

Personally, I believe we'll lose in Iraq. Not because of our military, but because of our resolve to get things done. No matter what the number of casualties might be, what kind of weapons are used, how many fought, or the training given, there is only one thing that determines who the losers and winners are in any conflict: how determined each side is to win.

Central and overwhelming fault with this argument:

What does it mean to win in Iraq?

 

[xd9fan]

Most Americans don't have the slightest idea of what the full consequences would be if we pull out of Iraq as we did in Viet Nam. Our fighting men and women did not lose Viet Nam - the home front did.

I'm tring to figure out how VietNam matter at all. I'm serious here. Color me young and clueless but what the hell did we gain that was worth it?

I figured Iraq would be a mess the moment I learned of the Iraq "Constitution" and what was NOT IN IT. We are Nation building.......which never works......and we are helping to build a "democracy" which has no place for Individual Liberty........bravo Bush.

Bush lost the homefront....Bush lost Conservatives......

lot of people I talk to are lost on WashingtonDC.......the Dems are lost in the socialist clouds....the GOP are just plain lost in the forest.

 

[wooderson]

Does it not occur to some people that Iraq isn't worth winning at all costs? Is there no war that cannot and should not be justified (and won)? Is there no limit to the sacrifices that should be made to win any given war?

 

[Jkwas]

Iraq was doomed way before the democratic party got its power back. The Iraqi people were doomed/screwed/bent over a barrel when BUSH and his cronies decided to invade.

Back when we had Saddam locked up in a box, Things were stabilized. Bush #1 got it right. The situation should have been left to play itself out.
I'm afraid this poster has it right. Now what do we do? Two choices:
Pull back out of the population centers that are warring with each other, let them fight it out and back the winner...
Divide the country up into a three state federal system with a central representative government.

We can't let it go on like it's going. We're not winning anything this way. We're spending ourselves into the poor house and diverting resources from things that can be more productive.
World War I nearly bankrupted England, and World War II finished the job. Wars cost money, and we're borrowing all the money to fight this one. Our children will pay the bill. We have to truly look at who's benefiting from this course of action and figure out what's best for us as a nation. Problem is, everyone is out for themselves and it's all run Amok! This thing is going to wear us into the ground and then someone will hit us from the blindside after we're all spent out. (Stalingrad? Bagdhad? They both end in "ad".)

 

[xd9fan]

Does it not occur to some people that Iraq isn't worth winning at all costs? Is there no war that cannot and should not be justified (and won)? Is there no limit to the sacrifices that should be made to win any given war?

ahhhh the heart of the issue. Your post can explain the problems of foriegn war in the last 60 years...A defensive war of the homeland (on our land) is a hell of alot differant than a Presidents conflict half away around the world......given the massive credibility problem WashingtonDC has (both parties)...the power above pronciple...the lying...the politics......is it really a wonder we are where we are?

This Govt cant even manage Walter Reed Hopsital let alone a "war".


lew rockwells has a great quote:
"What strikes me as ridiculous is the right-wing view that government is incompetent and dangerous domestically – at least in economic and social affairs – but has some sort of Midas Touch internationally such that it can bring freedom, democracy, and justice to any land its troops deign to invade."

I have no faith this lesson will be learned as well.

 

[foob]

Just curious, what did the US lose by pulling out of Vietnam? Other than screwing up the South Vietnamese, what tangible losses came out of withdrawing instead of continuing to fight?

The overwhelming reason for even sending forces to Vietnam was to "prevent the spread of communism". Somehow it was believed if Vietnam fell to communism, the entire South-East Asia would fall too. We know what happened there.

Now we see the same argument. If the US withdraws from Iraq, the entire region may self-destruct. That argument doesn't make sense. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc are all essentially ruled with an iron fist. And war only increases the chances of losing one's grip on the populace.

Iraq will descend into civil war until a strong dictator takes the helm, or neighboring countries may try and eat up parts of it. It takes heavy handed tactics to control Iraq, which the US are not willing to do.

I also like the argument "If we withdraw now, the sacrifice made by dead soldiers will be in vain". So basically continue digging a deeper hole?

 

[Lucky]

The Iraqi's are embroiled in their own affairs. Most of them want us out fo the country.

B.S. They Iraqi's are on record insisting that American presence is still required. They are scared ****less that America will leave them high and dry. Especially those who partook in the Democratic experiment - them and their families will be in the first round of tortures and executions.

"Do you think the Iraqis, who we've pledged to help out, will think it's an honorable thing?"
Oh I am sure they would love for us to stay and spoon feed them. I have no doubt they enjoy the security services and free construction they have been given compliments of the US Army and US taxpayers.

I think we have given them the chance to have a free society. We overthrew Saddam. Unlike cbsbyte, I think they are better off without Saddam. They are out from under a tyrant's yoke. Now, what happens to them should be up to them. The concept of self-determination is not something that Americans have a monopoly on. They are free men with free will. If they choose to allow their country to plunge into civil war, genocide, and self-destruction, that is really not our problem.

You really believe that? That's a pathetic cop-out. Will that salve your conscience as tens of thousands are killed for their political and religious views, and the rest of the country is plunged into a dictatorship?

And the Iraqi's ARE NOT ON THEIR OWN. They are being infiltrated by men and materiel from Syria and Iran, and the Saudis are probably funding some stuff too. To expect a country recovering from a blitzkrieg to be 'responsible for its own security' in that situation is like asking a child to fight Mike Tyson.

This is sickening, how many people here are willing to sacrifice, just like you'd sacrifice a goat or a chicken, and entire country with their hopes and dreams, for the sake of an election.



There's at least two things that will happen from this - those that don't like the US will get that smug self-satisfaction 'scheudenfreud' (France, Russia, etc) of seeing the country they hate suffer. And then there's those who used to be committed to NATO and NORAD, who now will have big hesitations in trusting the US to uphold their end of any bargain.

Seriously, what the hell is the point of NATO or NORAD if you suspect the USA will withdraw before an election, that Germany will hide in a corner, etc.? What does the west have to oppose any growing world threat?