Endgame

[Skybird]

From Capitol Hill Blue


The Rant
Field commanders tell Pentagon Iraq war 'is lost'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Jun 5, 2006, 07:13


Military commanders in the field in Iraq admit in private reports to the Pentagon the war "is lost" and that the U.S. military is unable to stem the mounting violence killing 1,000 Iraqi civilians a month. Even worse, they report the massacre of Iraqi civilians at Haditha is "just the tip of the iceberg" with overstressed, out-of-control Americans soldiers pushed beyond the breaking point both physically and mentally.
"We are in trouble in Iraq," says retired army general Barry McCaffrey. "Our forces can't sustain this pace, and I'm afraid the American people are walking away from this war."
Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has clamped a tight security lid on the increasingly pessimistic reports coming out of field commanders in Iraq, threatening swift action against any military personnel who leak details to the press or public.
The wife of a staff sergeant with Kilo Company, the Marine Unit charged with killing civilians at Haditha, tells Newsweek magazine that the unit was a hotbed of drug abuse, alcoholism and violence.
"There were problems in Kilo company with drugs, alcohol, hazing [violent initiation games], you name it," she said. "I think it's more than possible that these guys were totally tweaked out on speed or something when they shot those civilians in Haditha."
Journalists stationed with the unit described Kilo Company and the Third Batallion of Marines as a "unit out of control," where morale had plummeted and rules went out the window.
Similar reports emerge from military units throughout Iraq and even the Iraqi prime minister describes American soldiers as trigger happy goons with little regard for the lives of civilians.
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki says the murder of Iraqi civilians has become a "daily phenomenon" by American troops who "do not respect the Iraqi people."
"They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion. This is completely unacceptable," Maliki said. The White House tried to play down Maliki's comments, saying the prime minister was "misquoted" although Maliki himself has yet to made such a public claim.
''Can anyone blame Iraqis for joining the resistance now?'' Mustafa al-Ani, an Iraqi analyst living in Dubai, told The Chicago Tribune. ''The resistance and the terrorists alike are feeding off the misbehavior of the American soldiers.''
As the resistance mounts and daily violence escalates, the overstressed U.S. units are unable to control the mounting violence and conclusions escalate that the war is lost.
"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," says Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.
The former commander of American forces in Northern Iraq admits incidents like Haditha add to the impression that the U.S. cannot win the war.
"Allegations such as this, regardless of how they are borne out by the facts, can have an effect on the ability of U.S. forces to continue to operate," says Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham.
Others say the incident just shows the U.S. has lost he "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people.
"When something like Haditha happens, it gives the impression that Americans can't be trusted to provide security, which is the most important thing to Iraqis on a day-to-day level," says Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It tends to confirm all of the worst interpretations of the United States, and not simply in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan and in the region."
© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_8790.shtml

[STEED]

Military commanders in the field in Iraq admit in private reports to the Pentagon the war "is lost" and that the U.S. military is unable to stem the mounting violence

Don't tell George Bush that one and not forgetting Tony Blair. :doh:

[Onkel Neal]

Reports that we're losing the war… again? Those have been coming out every three months since the war began three years ago.


If I recall, I made my point a while back (six months ~ a year ago) that the US has done all it can do there, time to pull out. We enforced a UN resolution, made sure there were no WMDs, deposed the dictator, and helped the natives set up a democratic government. Plus we killed a lot of terrorists. No one will ever appreciate all we've done for them. The longer we stay there, the more it will look like we "lost" when we do pull out, just like Vietnam. Let the Iraqis have what they say they want, control of their destiny. They have a better shot now than they did when they were under the boot of the dictator. Time to look toward Iran.


Iraq, you're on your own. Best of luck to ya!:up:

[CB..]

it's 70's northern ireland on a massive scale--Jim
but not as we know it...

[August]

Reports that we're losing the war… again? Those have been coming out every three months since the war began three years ago.


If I recall, I made my point a while back (six months ~ a year ago) that the US has done all it can do there, time to pull out. We enforced a UN resolution, made sure there were no WMDs, deposed the dictator, and helped the natives set up a democratic government. Plus we killed a lot of terrorists. No one will ever appreciate all we've done for them. The longer we stay there, the more it will look like we "lost" when we do pull out, just like Vietnam. Let the Iraqis have what they say they want, control of their destiny. They have a better shot now than they did when they were under the boot of the dictator. Time to look toward Iran.


Iraq, you're on your own. Best of luck to ya!:up:


I agree 100% Neal.

[Skybird]

Reports that we're losing the war… again? Those have been coming out every three months since the war began three years ago.


If I recall, I made my point a while back (six months ~ a year ago) that the US has done all it can do there, time to pull out. We enforced a UN resolution, made sure there were no WMDs, deposed the dictator, and helped the natives set up a democratic government. Plus we killed a lot of terrorists. No one will ever appreciate all we've done for them. The longer we stay there, the more it will look like we "lost" when we do pull out, just like Vietnam. Let the Iraqis have what they say they want, control of their destiny. They have a better shot now than they did when they were under the boot of the dictator. Time to look toward Iran.


Iraq, you're on your own. Best of luck to ya!:up:

Have these reports been coming from the officers in the field? I see it diffrent. so far, the pentagon was spreading optimism. And bush did. And Rumsfeld as well. and his generals, too. Different suggestions so far were coming from people that were not within this apparatus, and from opposing politicians. that now those who should know it best also are reported to admit strategical defeat is new, to my best knowledge. But maybe I have missed the reports on the military saying it had lost the war, that is absolutely possible, of course. I do not scan all world medias day in, day out.However, the question now is what will be done? Waiting after the lections, when another Republican government could pull out and have four years time left to correct the negative prestige coming from that, or when a Democratic government is a thankful target to be held responsible then for having lost the war by pulling out too early? Field commanders have given it up, and they probbaly know ebtter than anyone else what they are talkiong about. so what consequences will be drawn from this? Business as usual?

[Onkel Neal]

My mistake, I didn't mean to suggest the US military has been sending reports as such from the beginning, just that one group or another has been proclaiming defeat from the beginning. Yeah, I agree, the State Dept. and Pentagon always paints a rosy picture, but one cannot expect otherwise. However, offsetting the overly optimistic picture are the press and foreign groups who opposed the military intervention--they painted a overly bleak picture.

What will be done? Pull US troops and most equipment out, hand over defense to the Iraqi govt. Make sure they are supplied with plenty of humanitarian and military aid and some human rights oversight, and let them get going with it. There has to be a time to acknowledge the US has reached its effectiveness… I suggest doing it before we get in that sloping trap of things getting worse and not wanting to leave until they are turned around. Things are as good as they are going to get under our control.

I certainly do not advocate political strategies concerning Republicans, Democrats. Let's just move on.

[Skybird]

I agree on what should be done. Like you, I have said a longer while now that it is time to pull out since nothing more can be accomplished (whereas in the early phase of the war, ignorring any political disputes and seeing it strictly militarily, I said that far more forces should be send into Iraq than what the pathetic Rumsfeld plan had prepared for). But something tells me that this administration will spend many more months with hesitating.We probably all agree in this: what a damn mess it all now is.

[Konovalov]

I would agree with what Neal has said and I would also agree with Skybird to a degree that Iraq is a mess, but then it was once named Mesopotamia many years ago. ;) However I won't judge Iraq now as a total failure or that nothing good can come out of what has transpired over the last few years. I believe that Iraq's future is not set. There are still different paths to which Iraq can go down both positive and negative. Time will tell.

[CB..]

just give the Iraqi government an insane amount of money let them fix a few things and the the people might start being gratefull--sure most of it will end up in some corrupt guys back pocket but that's nothing new--
if the actual iraqi goverment gets the credit for fixing the electricity water etc etc etc--then it will start to seem like they are sorting out their own problems and every one can quietly go back to sleep--

[bradclark1]

No one will ever appreciate all we've done for them.
What have we done for them? Booted out a dictator and turned their country into a killing field. Funny, if I was an Iraqi I don't think I'd be feeling too grateful right now.
The problem with us (Americans) is that we try to be a noble country and free these poor oppressed people and expect them to love us. What we got is a kick in the balls.
Nothing good has been accomplished and nothing good is going to happen. We made a bad situation worse. Screw the noble cause. We are breeding terrorists by being their. Time to cut our losses, pull out and let them slaughter each other. It's time to get ready for the next world war that our granchildren will have to fight or become ragheads.

[CCIP]

I think another point in this "appreciation for all that was done for them" is "at what cost?"

I would say that both for the US and especially for Iraq, what has been accomplished has come at a disproportionate cost. I for one am not sure it was worth it.

[August]

What have we done for them? Booted out a dictator and turned their country into a killing field. Funny, if I was an Iraqi I don't think I'd be feeling too grateful right now.
The problem with us (Americans) is that we try to be a noble country and free these poor oppressed people and expect them to love us. What we got is a kick in the balls.
Nothing good has been accomplished and nothing good is going to happen. We made a bad situation worse. Screw the noble cause. We are breeding terrorists by being their. Time to cut our losses, pull out and let them slaughter each other. It's time to get ready for the next world war that our granchildren will have to fight or become ragheads.

Do you really think the Iraqis are worse off now and forever than they were under the tryannical rule of Saddam and his henchmen?

I think the Sunnis might agree as they were the ones who benefitted the most, but the Shiites and especially the Kurds certainly wouldn't. I firmly believe that things over there will eventually stabilize but people seem to have little tolerance for the patience this process will require.

Just look at their constitution for example. Many people here in the west were complaining it took them a year to come up with a working constitution. We forget that even here in the US with the advantage of peace and prosperity it took our founding fathers over a decade to come up with something everyone could agree to and even that lasted only 60 years before a civil war erupted over what the details really meant.

[CB..]

what i can't undertsand is why America still considers it self to be at war with Iraq???

it's done we won..what your doing is losing is the peace...
beats me--

[Onkel Neal]

What have we done for them? Booted out a dictator and turned their country into a killing field.


We booted out the dictator, they are turning it into a killing field. Blame us for their lack of sense?


The problem .... is that we .... free these poor oppressed people and expect them to love us. What we got is a kick in the balls.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said.

[Onkel Neal]

what i can't undertsand is why America still considers it self to be at war with Iraq???

it's done we won..what your doing is losing is the peace...
beats me--

Agreed.

[tycho102]

We booted out the dictator, they are turning it into a killing field. Blame us for their lack of sense?

The Sunni and Shi'a have been killing each other since the *start* of the religion. Saddam was just keeping the Shi'a population beat down so they didn't organize a revolt. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have the same problem: a Sunni minority ruling a Shi'a majority.

My point is that it was already a killing field. CNN just wasn't reporting on it, because Saddam would've denied them entry to the country and MSNBC would've had absolutely no moral compunction about picking up the "slack" in Iraq coverage. Iran is a killing field, as well as Pakistan. Not to even mention Indonesia and Kashmir. The only thing that is different is that media organizations feel it is now "good business" to report all the things which had previously been deemed "good business" to repress.


What I don't understand is why we didn't pull our 38,000 troops out of South Korea, and task them with defending the borders. Japan, Spain, Italy, and Germany don't want our military there either, so pull those ~25,000 troops out and rotate them through Iraq as well. Having 50,000 devil-dogs out running random patrols, hunting the jihadists crossing the borders from Syria and Iran, would have made all the difference in the world.

[DeepSix]

"Losing the peace" is the reason why I didn't want us to go there in the first place. Another being that we were aiming to accomplish something that would have been more practically accomplished in 1991 (IMO). But nevertheless we went; I think we made the best of it to a point (removing the tyrant). But we never had (not to my satisfaction, at least) a clear idea of what our political dog would do if and when it actually caught the car it was chasing.

There has to be a time to acknowledge the US has reached its effectiveness… I suggest doing it before we get in that sloping trap of things getting worse and not wanting to leave until they are turned around. Things are as good as they are going to get under our control.

Yes; I think we're already on that slippery slope, unfortunately. Past time for Iraq to start becoming a product of self-determination, IMO. We're squandering any political capital the military victory may have earned us, and the longer we stay, the harder it will be to find political leverage with Iran, Korea, etc.

Just my opinion.

[scandium]

Have to disagree with you Neal, point by point:

We enforced a UN resolution

Only the UN security council has the authority to enforce security council resolutions. The usual retort to this is that the UN doesn't have the capability to enforce its own resolutions, but history says otherwise: the Persian Gulf War of 1991 was done on a UN mandate. To the other typical retort that the US doesn't need the UN to 'defend' its sovereignty, two points: (1) US Sovereignty wasn't being threatened by Iraq, and (2) Iraq didn't need the UN to invade Kuwait back in 1991, either.


made sure there were no WMDs
UN inspectors were on the ground looking for these WMDs when the US had them abruptly yanked to begin its invasion.

deposed the dictator
Only to setup an interim dictatorship of its own under the helm of Viceroy Paul Bremer that, during its short reign, privatized Iraqi industry, destroyed the country's economy, and disbanded the Iraqi army - all of which arguably poured fuel over the emerging insurgency.

helped the natives set up a democratic government
I would characterize it instead as powerless government presiding over a failing state that resembles an anarchy more than a democracy.

Plus we killed a lot of terrorists
Estimates I've seen put the number of killed civilians between 35,000 to 100,000 - so far. Undoubtedly some of them were terrorists. I suppose you could chaulk the rest up to "collateral damage", or even argue under the ideology of pre-emption that they've been pre-emptively killed to ensure they don't become terrorists. In either case I'm not sure this is the best way to fight terrorism.

No one will ever appreciate all we've done for them. Depends on who the "them" is. If its Halliburton you're referring to who's making a killing off this through their no-bid contracts, then I'm sure you have their gratitude ($3/gallon gas may be a funny way to show it, but maybe they'll send you a xmas card); if you've had your life turned upside down by this though, losing friends, family members, your job or your business then you probably appreciate that too - after all, to quote Rumsfeld from 3 years ago, "freedom is messy".

The longer we stay there, the more it will look like we "lost" when we do pull out, just like Vietnam. Let the Iraqis have what they say they want, control of their destiny. To have that you need opportunity and for that you need some measure of economic prosperity (no matter how meagre) and security. Since Iraq has neither, I don't see them having control over their destiny any time soon.

Iraq, you're on your own. Best of luck to ya!:up:
I think they'll need more than luck. ;)

[Skybird]

I do not share some people'S relative optimism on Iraq's future, and that this future is not decided. It very much is. The only question is to what degree American companies that tried to secure a foothold in the Iraqi oil business and other sectors they seized during the massive privatization wave under Bremer (as Scandium referred) can keep that foothold and preserve their influence.The argument that it was worse under Saddam I find to be almost insane. No, it has not been as bad under Saddam as it is now. There was not that ammount of murder and torutre as we see now, there was not that ammount of organized crime, there was not that masisvely climbing influence of religious ultraorthodx wings (in Baghdad people now get shot for selling Falafels on the street - for in Muhammad'S time, so is the argument, there were no Falafels). Under Saddam there has nopt been an industry of orgnaized kidnappings (couting by the thiusands poer quarter of a year), there has not been such a lack of water, eletcricity, sec urity on the streets. and last but not least, it was Saddam keeping the Iranian Mullahs and Taleban-style extremists out. Saddam is gone, fine - but that is only of concern for Saddam. If I had to choose in what Iraq I had to live, before or after 2003, my vote would clearly go for "before 2003".But all that is decided now, it is history, and the future will be a logical conseqeunce of the current state. I am not surprised by the outcome, how could I. The important question now is if and when Bush will bring home his people's sons and daughters. It's high time, and every further death is an even more useless one. For many of them a diffrent kind of battle will begin once they arrived back "home" - if they are able to think of it as that anymore. I repeat what I said repeateldy before: psychological consequences of traumatitzation by war action and stress in war can be very very massive and can ruin the whole rest of your life. American casualties are without doubt in the high tens of thousands, if not higher.the only winner of this is the American defense industry. They get payed for replacing detsroyed equipement, and repair and maintain all the equipement that after three years action must be very much worn out. the looser: the Iraqi people, and the American young generations. The taxes that are spend on Iraq are those taxes that not only are not available for their education and future life, but who are added to the monumental debt bill that has been added to the already high debts of the US, and that future generations will need to serve.Or should we assume that it never was planned to pay back national debts? :smug: Saw a movie yesterday, where one man said: why borrow money, if one has the intention to pay it back? :smug:Crazy planet this is. The older one gets, the less fun it makes.

[Drebbel]

If I had to choose in what Iraq I had to live, before or after 2003, my vote would clearly go for "before 2003".

Why ? You think it was safer, more properous, more comfy ?

[Skybird]

Ouh, and someone mentioned that terroists were killed. Yes. And for each one several other spopped up. By numbers we have more terrorists now in the world than before. In past months two or three times I remember to have red from American and British newspaper that assessements by US authorities cam to the conclusion that today there is more terrorist activity on a gloabl scale than before, and that the world has become less instead of more safer. If you fight with a hydra, you do not measure success by number of heads in your bag.

[Skybird]

Why ? You think it was safer, more properous, more comfy ?
I understand that as an attempt to be funny!?

[Drebbel]

I understand that as an attempt to be funny!?

Not at all. Why would you prefer living in Iraq before 2003 instead of after ?

--- litle later --- reread thread ---

Ah, missed it at first, now read it. Always get confussed with long parts of text.

Iraq before 2003 was only relatively safe and comfy for people that keep their mouth shut. People that protested would end up dead.

And protesting, when they come to get our fellow citizans, we must all do, even when it does not concerns outrselves , otherwise we will be next. Never forget what Pastor Martin Niemöller wrote in 1945 !

- - - - -


Under Saddam there has nopt been an industry of orgnaized kidnappings


Are you serious ? Was probably one of the specialities of all the secret services. What you think happened to all those people that disappeared ?

There was not that ammount of murder and torutre as we see now

How can one say that ?? Will we ever get reliable statistics of the pre-2003 years ?

it was Saddam keeping the Iranian Mullahs and Taleban-style extremists out.

One group of criminal extremists keeping the other groups of criminal extremists out. Well done Sadam !

[Skybird]

I base my statements that you quote on evaluation of people observing at location. Even representants of Iraqui authorities and institutions have been quoted repeatedly since let'S say roughly one year, saying that the ammount of torture being used by the present secret polices easily rivals that being used under Saddam, both in quantity and "quality". that the institutions are also infiltrated with agents of the isnurgents, and the various ethnic factions, does not help to make it less harmful. It seems that also a lot of open bills currently are settled. In no way I have the impression that survival and caring for a family is easier today than it was under Saddam. At work I know a woman from Iran, mother of a family. Although they fled because Saddam, their family agrees on what I say here, that today it has become worse than it was before. there was not that ammount of violance than there is today, simply that, and for most people, that is my impression, the supply situation with goods of the daily need was better - ironically especially during the sanctions - something that often has been stressed by correspondents in that time. It comes down to this - survivial and caring for my family has not become easier, but more difficult in the grim reality of today. Iraq has become the Lebanon of the Gulf. With the products from it's terrorist creation program we will have fun for many many years to come.

[Skybird]

One group of criminal extremists keeping the other groups of criminal extremists out. Well done Sadam !Maybe you remember years ago I argued like you and said that it is a bad idea to accept tyrants in power. I have changed my mind in the face of the threat of Europe being islamized. Saddam was no danger for anyone in the West, no matter what the propaganda tried to make us believe. the mullah regime that Iraq without any doubt will get sooner or later - that is a threat and a challenge that we cannot deal with. I see it pragmatic. Better one Saddam, than one more Mullah-Regime. Look at Egypt. western demand for democracy - elections - and suddenly the ultra-Islamic Muslim brotherhood seized every fifth seat in parliament (it would have been far more if Mubarak really would have allowed free elections). Is this what you want? Be careful what you wish before you answer. And I predict one thing: it is only a question of time until Afghnaistan falls back to where it was, too. I see it as almost inevitable.

[Drebbel]

Better one Saddam, than one more Mullah-Regime.

I rest my case, what was I thinking, I always thought it was a Sadam-regime, and now it turns out it was just 1 guy. Did we start a war for that ?? Ridiculous !!

[Skybird]

Judging by the outcome: indeed. Leave the hairsplitting to others, Drebbel, you know better what I was meaning. ;) I don't want to fight with you about nothing.

[Drebbel]

Judging by the outcome: indeed. Leave the hairsplitting to others, Drebbel, you know better what I was meaning. ;) I don't want to fight with you about nothing.

Good, I do not want to discuss either with people that call my opionion/arguments hairsplitting.

Drebbel: - out

[scandium]

Iraq before 2003 was only relatively safe and comfy for people that keep their mouth shut. People that protested would end up dead.
The 35,000 - 100,000 civilians killed since 2003 won't be doing much protesting.

And protesting, when they come to get our fellow citizans, we must all do, even when it does not concerns outrselves , otherwise we will be next. Never forget what Pastor Martin Niemöller wrote in 1945 !
Who is this "we" you refer to? Were you ever in Iraq protesting Saddam Hussein's regime? Are the Iraqis your "fellow citizens"? You are confusing an invasion and occupation by a foreign power with an internal uprising. They are not the same thing.

How can one say that ?? Will we ever get reliable statistics of the pre-2003 years ?
Will we ever get reliable statistics from the post-2003 years? The most reliable looking estimates I've seen so far put the number of casualties at between 35,000-100,000 ... in other words, 70,000 dead plus or minus a few tens of thousands.

One group of criminal extremists keeping the other groups of criminal extremists out. Well done Sadam !
With such a low bar to set the expectations at you'd almost think the US couldn't possibly do any worse... by the way, how many severed heads have they found over there this week? 4 is it?

[Skybird]

Your remark on that I only meant a single person when saying Saddam (like many pliticians did before me!) - that was hairsplitting, admit it! :) Most people do mean the regime when mentioning that single name, and I am sure you know that.

[Onkel Neal]

Have to disagree with you Neal, point by point:


Only the UN security council has the authority to enforce security council resolutions. The usual retort to this is that the UN doesn't have the capability to enforce its own resolutions, but history says otherwise: the Persian Gulf War of 1991 was done on a UN mandate.

I never said the US had the authority, did I? No, I said the US enforced the resolutions. The US and allies defended one of the main condition of the cease fire from the first conflict: No interference with weapons inspectors. The UN rolled over like a $3 whore, when Saddam wanted them out, no one stood up to him. We did, although very belatedly. And you say the first war was "done on a UN mandate"... pfft, call it UN, but it was really US. If the US and coalition had sat out that conflict, Saddam would still be in Kuwait. And probably Saudi Arabia by now. Seriously, when has the UN ever done anything significant without a major contribution by the US?



UN inspectors were on the ground looking for these WMDs when the US had them abruptly yanked to begin its invasion.

Yeah, sure. Saddam let them in at the last hour to pull the strings of the appeasement crowd. "Look, I let the weapons inspectors in, I'm a good guy". Hard to believe but that was an effective strategy, some people bought it.


Only to setup an interim dictatorship of its own under the helm of Viceroy Paul Bremer that, during its short reign, privatized Iraqi industry, destroyed the country's economy, and disbanded the Iraqi army - all of which arguably poured fuel over the emerging insurgency.

Yeah, you're really reaching now. Dictator Bremer, huh? Where is he now? Come on, get serious, man.

[Iceman]

Skybird you crack me up...you remind me of the big computer brain in I-Robot..."My logic is undeniable.....My logic is undeniable....." Someone needs to insert some nan-nites into your brain to slow it down lol.I wish I kept my "Wizard" pic of ya...I predict, I predict, BS all the time....It is not prediction pointing out the obvious things in life.You yourself proclaim the absurdity of the Muslim faith practiced in the countries over there and I my self have been en-lightened by alot of your posting rergarding this.The world is on a steady track leading to destruction and nothing you or any "Human" can do about it.The sun rises and again hastens to the place from whence it came.You don't have to be Christian or Jew or Muslim to know be-heading innocent people is wrong.Or strapping bombs to yourself and blowing up you countrymen because one is called Shia and one is called Sunni.This is maddness on a grand scale.Whether America would have gone in when daddy Bush was pres or now I feel the outcome would have been exactly the same.Only because America does not do what conquers of old have done and that is to make the loser submit like a whipped dog and if it doesn't it got shot.America used to do that 200 yrs ago ask any American Indian here that is left alive.It is a no-win only because we care and hate to see the civil war that will ensue now and more innocent people will die.If we didn't care then we would have massacred them ALL and be sending all that black gold home now for free.I do not know what you could do now except divide the country up into the seperate sects possibly, it seems it is being divided up now by themselves to just stay alive.I love ya Sky :)

[kiwi_2005]

What! the americans are losing the war!!!:nope: When in doubt call the kiwis!:yep:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c387/mischazion/kiwi.jpg

:arrgh!:

[snowsub]

What! the americans are losing the war!!!:nope: When in doubt call the kiwis!:yep:
:arrgh!:

C/mon Kiwi, you need that army, it's the only one you've got
:rotfl: ;) :p :sunny:

[Dowly]

Guerrilla warfare is hard to fight against. Anyone in the crowd can be a terrorist and there´s nothing you can do. Well, you could shoot the whole bunch, but that would look bad in the news.;)

[scandium]

I never said the US had the authority, did I? No, I said the US enforced the resolutions. The US and allies defended one of the main condition of the cease fire from the first conflict: No interference with weapons inspectors. The UN rolled over like a $3 whore, when Saddam wanted them out, no one stood up to him. We did, although very belatedly. And you say the first war was "done on a UN mandate"... pfft, call it UN, but it was really US. If the US and coalition had sat out that conflict, Saddam would still be in Kuwait. And probably Saudi Arabia by now. Seriously, when has the UN ever done anything significant without a major contribution by the US?

I'm calling it a UN mandate because the United Nations is the international body that is charged with settling international disputes and because it was the UN that authorized the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Though a very flawed and imperfect body, it exists to at least attempt to resolve international disputes so that armed intervention isn't the first and only recourse between nations who have a dispute. Certainly it was the US who led the 32 nation coalition that removed Iraq from Kuwait, but it was the UN who legitimized the action and it turned out to be a pretty quick and clean process.

As to the weapons inspections, I guess we have a different take on how that played out. I'm not disputing that it involved a lot of arm twisting, but the results were what mattered and it looked to me like they were getting results - right up until the US had them pulled from Iraq.

Yeah, sure. Saddam let them in at the last hour to pull the strings of the appeasement crowd. "Look, I let the weapons inspectors in, I'm a good guy". Hard to believe but that was an effective strategy, some people bought it.
My reasoning was pretty simple: if the US couldn't find Osama Bin Laden in a cave in Afghanistan, why would I believe they could find Iraq's alleged WMDs? And with Bin Laden still on the loose and Al Qaeda still hatching plots, why focus attention on a country that had no connection to Al Qaeda or 9/11? It didn't make any sense to me then and it still doesn't now.


Yeah, you're really reaching now. Dictator Bremer, huh? Where is he now? Come on, get serious, man.
He was handed a Medal of Freedom in the same ceremony where it was awarded to George Tenet (who was blamed for the "bad intelligence" on Iraq's WMDs) and Jay Garner (who said he was sacked after only one month on the job because he wanted free elections and rejected the imposed programme of privatization).

As to what I said about Bremer, I don't consider that reaching. He was appointed overseer of Iraq for a little over a year, and in that time issued some 100 odd decrees which included:
Orders 37 and 49 which reduced the top tax rates from 45% to 15%.

Order 54 which abolished all import duties on Iraq, aside from a 5% reconstruction levy.

Order 39 that allows for a 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi companies excluding those in the oil, gas, and banking sectors.

Order 2 that dissolved the Iraqi army.When you have an appointed official from a foreign occupying power issuing such decrees I call it as I see it. International law also stipulates that an occupying power is required to respect existing laws unless absolutely prevented and that doesn't look to be the case there. Most of this moot now anyway, but its still interesting how two people can look at the same events and reach such different conclusions on them.

[Onkel Neal]

As to the weapons inspections, I guess we have a different take on how that played out. I'm not disputing that it involved a lot of arm twisting, but the results were what mattered and it looked to me like they were getting results - right up until the US had them pulled from Iraq.


When you have an appointed official from a foreign occupying power issuing such decrees I call it as I see it. International law also stipulates that an occupying power is required to respect existing laws unless absolutely prevented and that doesn't look to be the case there. Most of this moot now anyway, but its still interesting how two people can look at the same events and reach such different conclusions on them.

The weps inspections were getting results only because Bush Jr was
effectively posturing for military-imposed enforcement of the UN resolutions. Honestly, Saddam would have never backed up without this threat of force from the US. Exactly how Iran has treated the EU Three (France, UK, Germany) over uranium enrichment. Stalling, phony negotiations, utter disdain.

Certainly there has to be someone making the decisions, and in many cases, they are unilateral. But my point about Dictator Bremer is that you and I both know that is temporary. It's understood, and it has historical precedent. The US sets up an interim government and takes steps to turn power over to the indigenous people.

Yeah, it is interesting, how people can see the same issue with vastly different conclusions.

[DeepSix]

...As to what I said about Bremer, I don't consider that reaching. He was appointed overseer of Iraq for a little over a year....

Of course he was appointed. How else could an occupation government possibly function? If you think things over there are a mess now, what do you think the country would have been like if he hadn't been? No temporary system is perfect, but how else would you suggest that the infrastructure of a country ruled for years and years by a ruthless man be properly restored? How would you provide electricity? Plumbing? Communications? Transportation? Further, what would the outcome have been if free elections had been held within days or hours after Saddam's statue was pulled down? Do you think they would have been fair? Orderly? Non-violent? How many people would have understood that they could vote? Let alone done so? Why should the occupation of Iraq play out differently from any other post-war occupation?

...Order 2 that dissolved the Iraqi army.

More sophistry. As usual you wield a half-truth. Saddam's army was dissolved. You conveniently leave out that the Iraqi Army has been rebuilding ever since.

International law also stipulates that an occupying power is required to respect existing laws...

Respect existing laws of the tyrant we went there to remove?

[scandium]

The weps inspections were getting results only because Bush Jr was
effectively posturing for military-imposed enforcement of the UN resolutions. Honestly, Saddam would have never backed up without this threat of force from the US. Exactly how Iran has treated the EU Three (France, UK, Germany) over uranium enrichment. Stalling, phony negotiations, utter disdain.

Certainly there has to be someone making the decisions, and in many cases, they are unilateral. But my point about Dictator Bremer is that you and I both know that is temporary. It's understood, and it has historical precedent. The US sets up an interim government and takes steps to turn power over to the indigenous people.

Yeah, it is interesting, how people can see the same issue with vastly different conclusions.


I've been following events in Iran so far as well. Time will tell I guess on how things play out, but the two things I'd rule out so far are (1) the use of tactical nuclear weapons on Iran (I see the posturing there as far as these go as just that); (2) any kind of ground campaign. The only question to me is on whether or not the use of force will become necessary (which would consist of some kind of air campaign), and if so when.

[The Avon Lady]

Oh, and someone mentioned that terroists were killed. Yes. And for each one several other spopped up. By numbers we have more terrorists now in the world than before.
How many terrorists would there have been in the world had the US not invaded Iraq? How about if they had just invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq?

How many of these terrorists would have devoted their time effort and energy to commiting attrocities in N. America, Europe and Asia, has they not been attracted like iron filings to a magnet to the war in Iraq.

Always look on the bright side of life.:yep:

This is not to say that all is well in Iraq. I mostly agree with you, Skybird, that things are not going great and much of it is due to poor planning, the wrong goals and impossible dreams. But I strongly disagree on the argument that there definitely would have been less terrorism in the world otherwise. And while the hoards Islamic shadid wannabeasts have been attracted to a far and distant battlegrounds of Babylon, the world has learned a few things or 2 about them, though they haven't or aren't willing to digest all the facts up till now.

[scandium]

Of course he was appointed. How else could an occupation government possibly function? If you think things over there are a mess now, what do you think the country would have been like if he hadn't been? No temporary system is perfect, but how else would you suggest that the infrastructure of a country ruled for years and years by a ruthless man be properly restored? How would you provide electricity? Plumbing? Communications? Transportation? Further, what would the outcome have been if free elections had been held within days or hours after Saddam's statue was pulled down? Do you think they would have been fair? Orderly? Non-violent? How many people would have understood that they could vote? Let alone done so? Why should the occupation of Iraq play out differently from any other post-war occupation?
Good list of things to consider when drawing up plans to invade and occupy a country :up:.Though having never advocated such an action you are posing them to the wrong person. The right person you can probably find on www.whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov)

More sophistry. As usual you wield a half-truth. Saddam's army was dissolved. You conveniently leave out that the Iraqi Army has been rebuilding ever since.
Sophistry eh? Do you call the US Military George Bush's army? I don't. But then again, it isn't the convention to refer to an army by its commander-in-chief since commanders come and go while the army remains (except when dissolved by the Viceroy).

Respect existing laws of the tyrant we went there to remove?
*shrug* I don't write international law.

[DeepSix]

Good list of things to consider when drawing up plans to invade and occupy a country :up:.Though having never advocated such an action you are posing them to the wrong person. The right person you can probably find on www.whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov)

Good God, we actually agree on something!:lol: Indeed, none of those things were, in my opinion, fully considered in the haste of going to war. I do think, though, that they have been more successfully accomplished during the occupation than they would have been otherwise. That said, I also think we've done as much over there as we can do. As for alerting whitehouse.gov, I think the lights are on but nobody's home there these days.

Sophistry eh? Do you call the US Military George Bush's army? I don't. But then again, it isn't the convention to refer to an army by its commander-in-chief since commanders come and go while the army remains (except when dissolved by the Viceroy).

No, I don't refer to the U.S. military by its C-in-C, but the Iraqi Army under its former tyrant hardly compares to the U.S. military under any president. My point was that it would have been militarily stupid to leave Hussein's army physically or organizationally intact after defeating it. Surgeons don't remove "most" of the cancer and then leave a little because "oh, well, it probably won't grow back."

[scandium]

Good God, we actually agree on something!:lol: Indeed, none of those things were, in my opinion, fully considered in the haste of going to war. I do think, though, that they have been more successfully accomplished during the occupation than they would have been otherwise. That said, I also think we've done as much over there as we can do. As for alerting whitehouse.gov, I think the lights are on but nobody's home there these days.

I agree with all of these points.

No, I don't refer to the U.S. military by its C-in-C, but the Iraqi Army under its former tyrant hardly compares to the U.S. military under any president. My point was that it would have been militarily stupid to leave Hussein's army physically or organizationally intact after defeating it. Surgeons don't remove "most" of the cancer and then leave a little because "oh, well, it probably won't grow back."

We disagree there as I don't see the army itself as being inherently cancerous. Using your analogy I would say dissolving the army was killing the patient to cure the cancer, since there was a viable alternative in simply keeping the army but purging the undesirables from it.

[kiwi_2005]

C/mon Kiwi, you need that army, it's the only one you've got
:rotfl: ;) :p :sunny:


:rotfl:

[August]

...since there was a viable alternative in simply keeping the army but purging the undesirables from it.

Unfortunately for this theory the undesireables included nearly everyone from the rank of Sergeant on up, who only got to their position by their committment to their dictator and his Baathist party. Not much of an army left in that case.

[Skybird]

Think of it as human wear and tear. No one should expect humans working, no matter what, under such conditions without being mentally affected. War turns men into dogs. The longer, the worse. Good training and preparation can delay it, but not avoid it. Those men are no mindless robots. They may have been told not to think aboiut what they see, but problem is - every human tends to think about images on his mind nevertheless. Isn't there a movie from two soldiers being published, the two filmed one year with private cameras everything that they saw from a first person perspective? second name of one of them was Pink, I guess. Is this a commercial release, or a TV docu only? I would be interested to see it. Saw "Jawhead" after having red the book, but this mediocre movie does not compare to the impressive though mercyless and topugh-languaged uncovering of the mental conditions and processes of the protagonists.